Agenda
For enquiries on this agenda, please contact: Henry Yellop tel: 020 8547 5846 e-mail: [email protected]
This agenda is available on: www.kingston.gov.uk
Published on 1 December 2020
Development Control Committee
Date: Wednesday 9 December 2020
Time: 7:30 pm
Place: An online meeting that can be viewed on the Council's Youtube page
Members of the Committee
Councillor Malcolm Self (Chair) Councillor Kim Bailey (Vice Chair) Councillor Roy Arora Councillor Mark Beynon Councillor David Cunningham Councillor Lorraine Dunstone Councillor Simon Edwards Councillor Lesley Heap Councillor Rebekah Moll Councillor Stephanie Archer Councillor Dave Ryder-Mills
Everyone is welcome to attend the meeting
This agenda is available to view on: www.kingston.gov.uk You can also access this agenda through the Modern.gov app or by scanning the QR code with your smartphone.
Agenda
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND ATTENDANCE OF 1. SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
2. Minutes To confirm the minutes of the previous meeting and any outstanding minutes. 3. Declarations of interest Members are asked to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests and any other non-pecuniary interests (personal interests) relevant to items on this agenda.
4. PLANNING APPLICATIONS Appendix A To consider the following planning applications:
· 20/02213/FUL - Roupell House, Florence Road & Land To The Rear Of 37-40 York Road, Kingston Upon Thames KT2 6JS · 20/02216/FUL - Land To Rear Of 204-210C Cambridge Road, Kingston Upon Thames, KT1 3LU
5. Urgent items authorised by the Chair To consider any items which, in the view of the Chair, should be dealt with as a matter of urgency because of special circumstances in accordance with S100B(4) of the Local Government Act 1972. Welcome to this meeting.
Webcasting of the meeting
This meeting will be webcast live on Council's Youtube Channel and a recording will also be available to watch back a few hours afterwards. Recordings are accessible for a period of 12 months.
Contact for further information - For further about Council Committees and meetings please contact: Henry Yellop 020 8547 5846, e-mail: [email protected] Speaking on Planning Applications, Enforcement, or Tree Preservation Orders
There is a registration scheme for residents wishing to speak on planning applications, tree preservation orders or enforcement cases to be determined by the Committee.
The arrangements for speaking on applications are based on both sides having equal time to make their points to Councillors. To make sure that the meeting runs in a way which is fair to everyone, these arrangements will be followed without any exceptions being made. The full scheme is on the Council website at the ‘Council and Decision making’ webpages.
Everyone wishing to speak on an application, Enforcement Action or Tree Preservation Order must have registered THREE days before the meeting. Objectors must have responded to the consultation on an application Registration deadline: 10:00am, Monday 7 December 2020 To register please contact: Henry Yellop tel: 020 8547 5846 , e-mail: [email protected]
Time for speaking - FIVE minutes is allowed for each side on each application. This time has to be shared by however many there are on each side. If there are a large number of speakers people must decide amongst themselves on a spokesperson or some other arrangement.
The Chair of the meeting has no discretion to extend the time limit.
Speakers may find it helpful to have made some notes on what they want to say, so that they make the most of the speaking time. The notes attached to the original consultation letter from the Planning Officer will have explained the things that the Committee can't take account of - loss of view, property values etc.
The order of speaking is: Planning applications Enforcement/Tree Preservation Orders 1. Planning Officer to present item Planning Officer to present item 2. Objector(s) (5 minutes) Land/property owner (5 minutes)
3. Applicant (5 minutes) The Council as applicant and/or supporters of the action proposed (5 minutes) 4. Questions from Committee: Questions from Committee 5. Objector(s) (5 minutes) Land/property owner (5 minutes) Applicant (5 minutes) The Council as applicant and/or supporters of the action proposed (5 minutes) 6. Sweep up by Planning Officer 7. Questions from Committee to Officers 8. Debate and decision by Committee A1 Appendix A
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
25/11/2020
REPORT BY
Assistant Director of Strategic Planning & Infrastructure
INDEX
ITEM REGISTER ADDRESS DESCRIPTION RECOMMENDATI PAGE NO NO ON NO
A1 20/02213/FUL Roupell House, Partial demolition of PERMIT Florence Road the existing Roupell subject to planning & House building and conditions and the completion of a Land To The erection of a part Service level Rear Of 37-40 3-storey, part 4-storey agreement between York Road, building comprising the relevant Kingston Upon 23 residential units Directors. Thames with associated KT2 6JS landscaping, refuse and cycle storage, public pathway improvements to the eastern boundary and landscaping improvements to the existing communal amenity space to the rear of 37-40 York Road (Dale Court).
A1 A2
A2 20/02216/FUL Land To Rear Erection of 5 storey PERMIT Of 204-210C building comprising of subject to planning Cambridge 18 self-contained conditions and the Road, Kingston completion of a residential units (8 x Upon Thames, Service level KT1 3LU one-bedroom, 9 x agreement between two-bedroom and 1 x the relevant three-bedroom) with Directors. associated landscaping, car parking (8 x car parking spaces), refuse and cycle storage
Page A2 A3
REPORT BY THE
Assistant Director of Strategic Planning & Infrastructure
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Background Papers
Item A1 Background Papers Application Reference 20/02213/FUL
All Background Papers are available on the Council's website for review
KSS-RH-A-P10-001 Red Line P01 KSS-RH-A-P11-GF Proposed Ground Floor Plan P01 P02 KSS-RH-A-P11-001 Proposed Typical Floor 1F to 2F P01 P02 KSS-RH-A-P11-002 Proposed 3F 1: P01 P02 KSS-RH-A-P11-003 Proposed Roof Plan P01 P02 KSS-RH-A-P12-001 Proposed GA Section P01 P02 KSS-RH-A-P13-001 Proposed South Elevation P01 P02 KSS-RH-A-P13-002 Proposed North Elevation P01 P02 KSS-RH-A-P13-003 Proposed East Elevation P01 P02 KSS-RH-A-P13-004 Proposed West Elevation P01 P02 KSS-RH-A-P10-002 Proposed Block Plan P01 DAS P02 Landscaping Plan ref: 31345 LC01 Rev D dated 27/11/2020 Energy Report v.3 dated Nov 2020 Sustainability Report v.3 dated Nov 2020 TVIA v1.3 dated Nov 2020 Daylight and Sunlight Report dated 23 November 2020
Item A2 Background Papers Application Reference 20/02216/FUL
All Background Papers are available on the Council's website for review
KSS-CR-A-P10-001 Red Line P01 P02 KSS-CR-A-P11-GF Proposed Ground Floor Plan P01 P02 KSS-CR-A-P11-001 Proposed Typical Floor 1F to 4F P01 P02 KSS-CR-A-P11-002 Proposed Roof Plan P01 P02 KSS-CR-A-P12-001 Proposed GA Section P01 P02 KSS-RH-A-P12-001 Proposed GA Section P01 P02 KSS-RH-A-P13-001 Proposed South Elevation P01 P02
Page A3 A4
KSS-RH-A-P13-002 Proposed North Elevation P01 P02 KSS-RH-A-P13-003 Proposed East Elevation P01 P02 KSS-RH-A-P13-004 Proposed West Elevation P01 P02 KSS-CR-A-P10-002 Proposed Block Plan P01 P02 Fire Strategy Statement ref: EL7109/ks/15bw Arboricultural Method Statement ref: 05440 Cambridge Rd AMS Rev A Tree Protection Plan ref: 05440 Cambridge Rd AMS Rev A Landscaping Plan ref:31345 L05 Rev A Ecology Report ref: 1005906 EcoApp Cambridge Road vf3/CG/JB, and dated 27/11/2020 Daylight and Sunlight Report dated 27th November 2020 Transport Statement v2.0 dated November 2020 Outline Travel Plan v2.0 dated November 2020
Page A4 A5
Register No: 20/02213/FUL Address: Roupell House, Florence Road & Land To The Rear Of 37-40 York Road, Kingston Upon Thames, KT2 6JS
(c) copyright of applicant [Please note that this plan is intended to assist in locating the development; it is not the site plan of the proposed development which may have different boundaries. Please refer to the application documents for the proposed site boundaries.]
Page A5 A6
Ward: Canbury Description of Proposal: Partial demolition of the existing Roupell House building and erection of a part 3-storey, part 4-storey building comprising 23 residential units with associated landscaping, refuse and cycle storage, public pathway improvements to the eastern boundary and landscaping improvements to the existing communal amenity space to the rear of 37-40 York Road (Dale Court).
Plan Type: Full Application
Expiry Date: 18.12.2020
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Planning permission is sought for the partial demolition of the existing Roupell House building and the erection of a part 3-storey, part 4-storey building comprising 23 residential units with associated landscaping, refuse and cycle storage, public pathway improvements to the eastern boundary and landscaping improvements to the existing communal amenity space to the rear of 37-40 York Road (Dale Court).
● The proposed development would be “Car Free” with no on-site car parking spaces proposed with no access to car parking permits allowed. ● A total of 46 cycle parking spaces would be provided. ● The proposed development consists of a part three-storey, part four-storey building comprising 23 residential units ● The 23 dwellings would all be affordable units (100% London Affordable Rent). ● The proposed unit mix would be as follows: ○ 1x3 bedroom flat - (4%); ○ 13x2 bedroom flats - (57%); and, ○ 9x1 bedroom flats - (39%).
Following the presentation of the proposal to the Neighbourhood Committee for consultation, the application was amended to include pitched roof detailing to respond to concerns raised by the Committee and residents.
RECOMMENDATION;
Page A6 A7
Approve subject to completion of relevant ‘Service Level agreement between the relevant Directors’, as specified in the legal agreements section, and to delegate to the Head of Development Management any consequent changes to conditions and agreements to be agreed in consultation with the Chair of the Development Control Committee.
Planning Application Fact Sheet
Planning Proposed Relevant Standard Compliance with Issue Development Plan?
Affordable 100% Affordable 50% of units to be Yes housing Housing (Social provided as affordable Rent) housing
Housing Mix 3 bedroom - 1 (4%) A minimum of 30% of No dwellings as 3 or more 2 bedroom - 13 bedroom units (this (57%) figure should be exceeded on sites 1 bedroom - 9 (39%) particularly suited to larger family housing)
Density 145u/ha 70-170 u/ha Yes
Cycle parking 46 (42 long stay, 4 37 long stay, 1 short stay Yes short stay)
Car Parking None - ‘Car-Free’ Maximum Standard of Yes Development Less than 1 space per unit (London Plan 2016)
Carbon 54.1% 35% with Offset Yes Reduction contribution
Page A7 A8
1.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
1.1 The application site comprises Roupell House and land to the rear of Nos. 37-40 York Road. The existing Roupell House building to be demolished is two-storeys in height with Dale Court buildings to the north-east and east up to four-storeys in height. Florence House and York House to the north are three-storeys in height. Properties in the area comprise typically of Victorian two-storey detached and semi-detached dwellings, with some large blocks of accommodation in the wider area. The site is located within Canbury (Zone B) Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ).
1.2 In terms of planning designations, the site is not located within Fluvial Flood Zones 2 or 3 and is not host to any trees subject to Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs). No statutorily listed or locally listed buildings are located on-site or in the immediate vicinity. The site has a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 2 (Poor), Elm Road to the north and Park Road to the east form a part of the Borough Strategic Walking and Cycling network.
1.3 The site is approximately 500m to the north-east of Kingston Town Centre boundary and is approximately 780m from Kingston Train Station.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL
2.1 Planning permission is sought for the partial demolition of the existing Roupell House building and erection of a part 3-storey, part 4-storey building comprising 23 residential units with associated landscaping, refuse and cycle storage, public pathway improvements to the eastern boundary and landscaping improvements to the existing communal amenity space to the rear of 37-40 York Road (Dale Court).
2.2 The proposed dwellings would be 100% London Affordable Rent (LAR) and would comprise the following mix of flat sizes:
1 bedroom 9 (39%)
2 bedroom 13 (57%)
3 bedroom 1 (4%)
2.3 The density of the proposed development would be 145u/ha. Each dwelling would have access to private amenity space as well as approximately 568.4sqm of communal amenity space across the site which could be used
Page A8 A9
by existing and future residents. It is indicated that the proposed sustainability measures could achieve a 54.1% reduction in regulated CO2 emissions over the Part L 2013 baseline.
Proposed Block Plan of the development site
3.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
3.1 No history of relevance
Page A9 A10
4.0 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
4.1 Due to the Covid-19 outbreak, the developer conducted “remote” public consultation consisting of leaflets being delivered to 282 addresses, placing an advert in the Surrey Comet, as well as public webinars which were held on the 22nd and 23rd of June followed by Question and Answer sessions. A dedicated project website, email address and phone line was also set up. Full details of public consultation can be found in the submitted Statement of Community Involvement.
5.0 CONSULTATION
5.1 Site notices were displayed on site and a Press Notice was included in the Surrey Comet.
5.2 A total of 227 notification letters were sent to neighbouring properties. Below is a summary of the responses:
Number of letters Sent 227
Number of Responses Received 113
Number in Support 4
Number of Objections 109
Number of other Representations 0 (neither objecting or supporting)
Grounds for support Grounds for objection
● The proposal provides much ● Excessive height, bulk and massing; needed affordable housing on ● Overdevelopment/over-densification; an under-utilised brownfield ● Not in character with neighbouring site; properties and the wider area; ● Future residents can be ● Loss of privacy/overlooking; excluded from applying for ● Loss of Daylight/Sunlight; on-street car parking permits; ● Parking Congestion outside of car ● The site has good access to parking restriction times; public transport; ● Noise; ● Insufficient local infrastructure;
Page A10 A11
● The height is similar to ● Inner-city development in a neighbouring buildings and the residential area; design is high quality; ● Crime; ● Overspill car parking; ● Incongruous design; ● Solar panels need to be shown; ● The family dwelling should have back gardens; ● Loss of outlook/visual intrusion.
Other consultee comments:
Consultee Comments
Environment Agency No comments to make (EA)
Local Lead Flood No in principle objection - further information Authority (LLFA) requested. Any comments will be reported as late material.
Design Review by See Body of Report Design South East
RBK Neighbourhood No objection - Subject to conditions Traffic Engineer
RBK Biodiversity Officer No objection subject to planning conditions relating to biodiversity enhancements and external lighting
Thames Water No objection subject to planning informatives
RBK Pollution Control No objection in terms of land contamination or noise, Team however, an Air Quality Assessment is required.
RBK Trees and No objection subject to planning conditions Landscapes Officer
Designing Out Crime No objection subject to planning conditions Officer
Page A11 A12
Transport for London No objection
Kingston Neighbourhood This planning application has been discussed as a Committee consultation item at committee. The following comments were made by Councillors and members of the public against the development:
● Inappropriate unit mix; ● The flat roof would harm the longevity of the building; ● Green roofs/pitched roofs should be incorporated; ● Existing Dale Court properties should be maintained and repaired; ● Overmassed and overscaled; ● Overbearing and overlooking; ● Poor consultation with residents (prior to submission of the planning application); ● Four-storeys is inappropriate; ● Not Victorian in character; ● An architectural and urban disaster; ● Does not respect the building line; ● The site boundary has been extended; ● Misinformation on the drawings; ● 226 letters sent out and 116 responses received objecting to the development; ● The results of the pre-application consultations with residents have been ignored; ● Visual difference between Roupell House and Dale Court; ● Balconies overlooking neighbouring properties; and ● More trees should be planted to reduce carbon emissions
5.4 Following the submission of amended drawings and information on 27.11.2020, a further 227 neighbour notification letters were sent requesting any comments on the amended information. An additional Site Notice was also placed in the vicinity of the site on 27.11.2020.
5.5 2 letters of objection have been received both raise concerns with the proposed height of the tallest element of the amended proposal.
Page A12 A13
5.6 Any further responses received during this additional consultation period will be reported to the Development Control Committee as ‘Late Material’.
6.0 Policies
6.1 The Council as Local Planning Authority has a duty under Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to determine this application in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) (1990 Act) requires local planning authorities when determining planning applications to “have regard to (a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, (b) any local finance considerations, so far as material to the application, and (c) any other material considerations”. At present in relation to this application the relevant parts of the Development Plan consists of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames LDF Core Strategy 2012, The Kingston Town Centre Area Action Plan (AAP) 2008 and the London Plan March 2016.
6.2 The Draft London Plan was published in December 2017 and is a material consideration in planning decisions. It gains weight as it moves through the process to adoption and the weight given to the policies is for the decision maker. The Plan is at an advanced stage. Policies contained in the Intend to Publish (ItP) London Plan published in December 2019 that are not subject to a direction by the Secretary of State carry significant weight.
6.3 The latest version of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published in February 2019. This document provides guidance to local planning authorities in producing local plans and in making decisions on planning applications. The NPPF is intended to make the planning system less complex and more accessible by summarising national guidance which replaces numerous planning policy statements and guidance notes, circulars and various letters to Chief Planning Officers. The document is based on the principle of the planning system making an important contribution to sustainable development, which is seen as achieving positive growth that strikes a balance between economic, social and environmental factors. The NPPF falls within the other material considerations of the s.38(6) test.
6.4 The Development Plan remains the cornerstone of the planning system. Planning applications which comply with an up to date Development Plan should be approved. Refusal should only be on the basis of conflict with the Development Plan and other material considerations.
Page A13 A14
7.0 Assessment
7.1 The main considerations are:
● Principle of the Proposed Development; ● Housing Delivery; ● Affordable Housing; ● Design, Character and Appearance; ● Heritage; ● Standard of Accommodation; ● Trees and Landscaping ● Air Quality; ● Highways and Transportation; ● Environmental Sustainability; ● Ecology and Biodiversity; ● Flood Risk & Drainage; ● Land Contamination; ● Refuse; ● Legal Agreements.
8.0 Principle of Development
8.1 Paragraph 118 of the NPPF (2019) states that planning policies and decisions should “promote and support the development of under-utilised land and buildings, especially if this would help to meet identified needs for housing where land supply is constrained and available sites could be used more effectively".
8.2 Paragraph 123 of the NPPF (2019) goes on to say that “Where there is an existing or anticipated shortage of land for meeting identified housing needs, it is especially important that planning policies and decisions avoid homes being built at low densities, and ensure that developments make optimal use of the potential of each site.”
8.3 Paragraph 11 of the NPPF (2019) makes it clear that in terms of the presumption of sustainable development, and in relation to decision taking, development proposals which accord with an up to date development plan should be approved without delay.
8.4 Policies 3.3 and 3.4 of the London Plan (2016) emphasise that the Mayor recognises the pressing need for more homes in London, and will work with relevant partners to ensure that housing need is met.
8.5 At the local level LDF Policy CS10 of the Council's LDF Core Strategy (2012)
Page A14 A15
sets out the Borough's housing targets as defined by the London Plan (2011). These have increased since the adoption of the Core Strategy and Kingston currently has a target of 643 new residential dwellings per year under the London Plan (2016).
8.6 The proposal seeks the Partial demolition of the existing Roupell House building and erection of a part 3-storey, part 4-storey building comprising 23 flats, 100% of which would be London Affordable Rent (LAR). The principle of creating additional residential units within a predominantly residential area, on previously developed land, would be acceptable in principle, subject to compliance with Development Plan policies.
Conclusion on Principle of Development:
8.7 Overall, the principle of the development is acceptable subject to detailed considerations of the proposal against other development plan policies.
9.0 Housing delivery
9.1 Policy 3.3 of the London Plan March 2016 states that the Mayor recognises the pressing need for more homes in London in order to promote opportunity and provide a real choice for all Londoners in ways that meet their needs at a price they can afford. Working with relevant partners, the Mayor will seek to ensure the housing need identified in paragraphs 3.16a and 3.16b of the London Plan (49,000 (2015-2036) and 62,000 (2015-2026)) is met, particularly through provision consistent with at least an annual average of 42,000 net additional homes across London which will enhance the environment, improve housing choice and affordability and provide better quality accommodation for Londoners.
9.2 Table 3.1 (Annual average housing supply monitoring targets 2015 - 2025) of the London Plan requires the delivery of 6,434 dwellings within the plan period 2015-2025, a rate of 643 dwellings per year within the Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames which is almost double the previous rate of 375 dwellings per year identified in the 2011 London Plan.
9.3 Paragraph 73 of the NPPF directs that local planning authorities should identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide a minimum of five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirement set out in adopted strategic policies.
9.4 Paragraph 11d of the NPPF 2019 indicates that where there are no relevant development plan policies or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out of date (out of date includes, for
Page A15 A16
applications involving the provision of housing, situations where the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites) planning permission should be granted unless:
● the application of policies in the Framework provide a clear reason for refusing the development proposed, or ● any adverse impacts of doing so significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole
9.5 The Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land as required by the NPPF 2019, as such the tests set out in paragraph 11d must be applied. These considerations should be given considerable weight in the assessment of this planning application.
9.6 Policy CS10 of the Core Strategy 2012 states that the Council will seek to ensure that a broad mix of accommodation options are available to residents and that a range of local housing needs are met. It continues that the Council will expect all new residential developments to positively contribute to the Borough’s existing residential environment and character, in accordance with the Borough Character Study 2010, whilst optimising housing output in line with London Plan density policies.
9.7 Table 3.2 of the London Plan (2016) sets out an indicative Unit per Hectare (u/ha) range of 70-170u/ha for a site within an urban setting with a PTAL of 2-3. However, paragraph 3.28 goes on to state that Table 3.2 should not be applied mechanistically and that density ranges for particular types of location are broad, enabling account to be taken of other factors relevant to optimising potential such as local context, design and transport capacity as well as social infrastructure, open space and play space.
9.8 The proposed development would have a density of 145u/ha, this is within the guidance in the density matrix. It is further noted that the site is located in the walking distance of Kingston Railway station, providing access towards London and connecting stations to other parts of the capital, Surrey and beyond, and is also in walking distance of the town centre which has excellent public transport links. As such, the site is located in an area with access to services required to sustain sustainable living.
9.9 The delivery of 23 London Affordable Rent (LAR) dwellings, 4% of which would be capable of family occupation, would contribute positively towards the Council’s housing targets at a time when the Council is unable to
Page A16 A17
demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply. The proposal would be in accordance with the relevant housing delivery policies in the development plan.
10.0 Housing Mix
10.1 Policy DM13 of the Council's LDF Core Strategy (2012) states that the Council will ensure that the housing delivered is of high quality and the most appropriate type. The Policy states that new residential development is expected to incorporate a mix of unit sizes and types. Also, Policy DM13 requires that 30% of the proposed units should provide family accommodation (defined as a residential unit containing 3 or more bedrooms), unless it can be robustly demonstrated that this would be unsuitable or unviable.
10.2 The proposed development would provide only 1 3-bedroom unit (4%) with 13 2-bedroom units (57%) and 9 1-bedroom units (39%). The applicant states in the submitted Planning Statement that due to the site location and constraints, the proposed development could not accommodate a greater proportion of 3 bedroom dwellings. It is stated that the existing Roupell House comprises largely 1 bedroom or studio accommodation and that there would be limited opportunities for the private amenity and playspace associated with larger 3 bedroom units.
10.3 It is further stated that the current planning application must be viewed within the context of the wider Small Sites programme and that other sites within the programme provide a policy compliant mix of dwellings due to their site context being more conducive to family living.
10.4 The Kingston Housing Team has commented on the planning application outlining the current affordable housing need within the Borough which has been set out in the table below for ease of reference. The Kingston Housing Team welcomes the delivery of additional affordable housing which, when all Small Sites Applications are taken into consideration, would broadly meet the most pressing need and would increase the overall stock of high quality 1 and 2 bedroom dwellings within the Borough.
Bedroom Small Sites (Column A) (Column B) Size Provision Households Living Housing Register In Temporary Total Accommodation
Page A17 A18
1 28.7% (29*) 25.9% (247) 38.8% (1321)
2 46.5% (47) 44.8% (427) 31.5% (1132)
3 24.8% 22.8% (218) 23.8% (854)
4 0% 5.9% (56) 6.7% (242)
5+ 0% 0.6% (6) 1.2% (42)
*Actual numbers are noted in brackets
10.5 The arguments put forward by the applicant and the consultation response from the Council’s Housing Team about overall affordable housing need within the Borough are noted. It is also noted that the current Small Sites Programme planning applications would as a whole provide approximately 24.8% 3 bedroom units. However, Policy DM13 is clear that each site must incorporate an appropriate mix of units including a minimum of 30% of dwellings as 3 or more bedroom units unless it can be robustly demonstrated that this would be unsuitable or unviable.
10.6 It is not considered that the submitted arguments robustly demonstrate that the site would be unsuitable for a policy compliant provision of 3 bedroom units.
10.7 The proposed development at Roupell House would provide only 1x 3 bedroom unit (4% of the on-site total) which would fall well short of the 30% required by Policy DM13 and it has not been robustly demonstrated that the site would be unsuitable for a policy compliant mix of units. This is a disbenefit of the scheme which must be afforded an appropriate level of weight.
10.8 On a strategic level, it is noted that there is evidence of significant numerical demand for 1 and 2 bedroom affordable housing units with over 674 people in need of this size of unit within the Borough. While the proposed unit mix would not provide 30% 3 bedroom units as is required by Policy DM13, it would nonetheless meet a significant overall need for affordable housing within the Borough. Notwithstanding the above strategic arguments, the lack of on-site provision of 3 bedroom units is a departure from Development Plan policy which is a disbenefit of the scheme which must be afforded weight.
Page A18 A19
10.9 The departure from strict compliance with the requirements of Policy DM13 shall be considered further in the overall Planning Balance section below alongside other benefits/disbenefits of the scheme.
11.0 Affordable Housing
11.1 London Plan Policy 3.9 seeks to promote mixed and balanced communities by tenure and household income and Policy 3.12 seeks to secure the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing. Policy H5 of the draft London Plan and the Mayor’s Affordable Housing and Viability SPG page 5 set a strategic target of 50% affordable housing. Policy H6 of the draft London Plan and the Mayor’s Affordable Housing and Viability SPG set out a ‘threshold approach’ whereby schemes meeting or exceeding a specific threshold of affordable housing (35% or 50% on industrial/public land) by habitable room without public subsidy and which meets other criteria are not required to submit viability information to the GLA, nor would the application be subject to a late stage review mechanism.
11.2 In support of this stance Core Strategy Policy CS10 seeks to maximise the delivery of affordable housing. Furthermore, Policy DM15 requires 50% of the units to be provided as affordable housing and proposals departing from these requirements will be expected to justify any lower provision through the submission of a financial appraisal. DM15 also seeks to achieve a 70:30 tenure split between Social/affordable Rent and Intermediate housing. The Mayor of London’s preferred Tenure split is 30% London Affordable Rent, 40% capped affordable rents and 30% intermediate.
11.3 The proposed development comprises 23 London Affordable Rent (LAR) units. LAR units are defined under Policy H6 (Affordable Housing Tenure) of the Intend to Publish London Plan (2019) as being homes for households on low incomes where the rent levels are based on the formulas in the Social Housing Regulator’s Rent Standard Guidance. LAR rent homes are capped at benchmark levels by the Greater London Authority (GLA). Rents for LAR are significantly less than 80% of market rents, which is the maximum for Affordable Rent permitted by the NPPF (2019). The homes would be allocated in accordance with need (based on the Borough’s allocations policy). Once substantially completed, the development would provide decant accommodation for residents of the Cambridge Road Estate which is scheduled for regeneration.
11.4 The provision of 100% LAR housing is welcomed. It is noted in the most recent Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) (2016) that across the
Page A19 A20
Housing Market Area (HMA) over 80% of future annual demand will be for homes at social rent levels which include London Affordable Rent. Within this context it is considered that the proposed LAR tenure would be acceptable and would be in broad accordance with development plan policies.
12.0 Design, Character and Appearance
12.1 Paragraph 124 of the NPPF 2019 states that the Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. It states that ‘The creation of high quality buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve’ and ‘Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, creates better places in which to live and work and helps make development acceptable to communities.’ Paragraph 130 states inter alia that where the design of a development accords with clear expectations in plan policies, design should not be used by the decision-maker as a valid reason to object to development.
12.2 Policy DM10 of the Core Strategy 2012 states that new development proposals will be required to incorporate principles of good design and those elements that are identified as contributing to the character and local distinctiveness of a street or areas which should be respected, maintained or enhanced.
12.3 Policy DM11 of the Core Strategy 2016 states that the Council should take a more flexible approach to new development where the existing development lacks any identifiable or cohesive character and / or is located in a lower quality environment; in these circumstances it will seek a high quality development that creates its own distinctive character.
12.4 The Intend to Publish London Plan at paragraph 3.3.6 states that “Good design and good planning are intrinsically linked. The form and character of London’s buildings and spaces must be appropriate for their location, fit for purpose, respond to changing needs of Londoners, be inclusive, and make the best use of the city’s finite supply of land. The efficient use of land requires optimisation of density. This means coordinating the layout of the development with the form and scale of the buildings and the location of the different land uses, and facilitating convenient pedestrian connectivity to activities and services”.
12.5 The Kingston Character Study (2011) states in relation to the Victorian Canbury Character Area that: ‘The character of Canbury is a Victorian one. Not just in the dominating housing stock and street layout so popular today,
Page A20 A21
but also the activity and diversity of uses giving a unique character with light industry, businesses, pubs, churches, military and education buildings working successfully side by side in the adaptable building forms. Part of the area’s character is the snatched glimpses of the rears of the houses – the rooflines give a depth to the grid-iron street form revealing the solidity of the layout – without these views the streets could appear ‘stage-set’ and flimsy’. It is further stated that the Florence Road/York Road and corner of Acre/Cross Road are anti-context insertions which are ‘...over-scaled, of monolithic massing, and uncharacteristic of the area.’
12.6 Design Review Panel (DRP): The applicant undertook a design review held on 21 October 2020. In summary the Panel concluded:
‘We are comfortable with the overall scale and the site strategy has progressed in a positive direction. The proposal could be considered a good exemplar for achieving useful densities within an existing urban setting. We are, however, mindful of the optics of a new build adjacent to an existing building which suffers from social and maintenance issues.
The scheme would benefit from more detail on the landscape design, such as defined landscape species and lighting. To engender a sense of stewardship, the authority may wish to consider a partnership with the residents’ association and development of a central role for residents in the construction and/or maintenance of the landscape space.’
12.7 Specifically in relation to architecture the DRP comment that:
‘The scale and massing feel comfortable. The 3-storey step on the west is a clear and well-articulated response to the context.
Our advice from the previous review has been addressed, with wider entrances, rear gardens to the west and dual aspect homes at ground now provided. The eastern elevation is now more active.
To progress further, we would welcome greater activation and use of the roof space, alongside more design detail on the bins and bike stores, including appearance.
More intricate and careful architectural detail and articulation at the top of the buildings would be helpful. We question the grey balcony and railing treatment and would prefer to see the scheme softened in appearance through careful colour selections of balconies and bricks.’
Page A21 A22
12.8 No significant alterations to the scheme were recommended by the DRP. It is considered that further details of communal amenity spaces (including seating, raised beds), the public realm and landscaping (including tree species) could be secured by way of a planning condition to ensure that the constructive feedback and suggestions from the DRP are incorporated into the final development.
12.9 The planning application was presented to the Kingston Town Neighbourhood Committee on 02.11.2020 as a planning consultation item. Concerns were raised by members as well as local residents that the proposed flat roof form would not relate well to the character of the area, could result in increased maintenance costs and would appear overly bulky and that a pitched roof form would be a better solution.
12.10 Following the Neighbourhood Committee the applicant submitted revised drawings on 27.11.2020 which incorporate a pitched roof form. For the avoidance of doubt, the Local Planning Authority has accepted these revised drawings which form the basis of the assessment below. Neighbour notification letters were sent on 27.11.2020 advising neighbours that revised drawings were received and providing a further time for comments to be submitted.
12.11 The revised proposal incorporates pitched roof forms and gables on the southern elevation fronting onto Lowther Road which seek to respond to the Victorian architecture which is characteristic of the wider Canbury area. The eastern elevation facing Dale Court incorporates a pitched roof alongside dropped eaves and eaves level dormers to provide a softer appearance. A flat roof area would be incorporated on the western part of the building to provide a visual contrast with the main pitched roof of the building and to enable the installation of solar panels. The four storey element of the building would be a maximum of 14.5m in height with the three storey element a maximum of 12m in height (eaves height of approximately 9.8m).
12.12 It is important to note that the proposed development does not seek to replicate the existing properties which surround the application site, instead it has borrowed elements from the architectural vernacular namely the pitched roofs and vertical form to create a form of development which, given its greater scale, creates its own identity which reflects the context within which it sits.
Page A22 A23
12.13 In terms of materials and detailing, the four-storey element of the building would comprise multicolour brickwork of a lighter colour while a red coloured brick would be used for the three-storey element. Dark grey fibre cement slate tiles would be used for the pitched roofs while metal balustrades and light colour glazed tiles would be used at the communal entrance to add visual interest. Alternating projecting bricks, brick soldier courses and brick coping would be utilised to add texture and interest to the building.
Computer Generated Image (CGI) - View north-west towards the application site from where York Road/Lowther Road meet.
12.14 In terms of the site context, development to the north, north-east and east of the site largely comprises flatted development of between three-four storeys in height. To the south and west of the site are two-storey detached, semi-detached and terraced dwellings of a Victorian/Edwardian appearance. The flatted development at Dale Court has a flat roof while properties in the wider area typically have pitched roofs or have undergone hip-to-gable roof extensions in combination with flat roof dormers. As such, there are different roof forms and styles of development in the surrounding area.
12.15 In terms of height, massing and scale, it is considered that the proposal would relate well to its surroundings. The stepping down in height from four to three storeys along Lowther Road would be an appropriate and sensitive transition in massing. The proposed site layout is considered to be legible and the proposed landscaping would improve legibility, the pedestrian experience and would enhance permeability through the site. The contrasting brick palette would respond well to the surrounding townscape and the proposed facade fenestrations and proportion of windows is considered to be appropriate. The use of projecting bricks, brick soldier courses and brick
Page A23 A24
coping would add variety to the building facade, breaking up the massing and creating shadows that would animate the elevations throughout the day.
12.16 In terms of the proposed site layout, the proposed footprint would be similar to the existing Roupell House building to be demolished and is considered to be representative of the surrounding urban grain. The proposed landscaping improvements would include additional tree and shrub planting as well as playspace which would represent an improvement on the existing situation and a benefit to the wider community.
12.17 Overall, it is considered that the proposed development would be of a good design which would relate well to the character and appearance of the wider area, and notably replaces a building of minimal architectural quality. The proposal would be of an appropriate layout, form, and scale which would respond well to its local context. The proposed development would provide a play area alongside improved public realm and landscaping which would be a significant benefit of the scheme.
CGI - View north-east towards the application site from Lowther Road
Page A24 A25
CGI - View northwards towards the application site from Willoughby Road
13.0 Heritage
13.2 The site is not located within a Conservation Area and the closest statutory listed buildings to the site are Grade II listed ‘The Gatehouse - The Keep’ approximately 300m to the north and Grade II listed 18-20 Borough Road approximately 300m to the south-east. The distance between the proposal and designated heritage assets is such that there would be no direct or indirect impact or harm to their significance.
14.0 Archaeology
14.1 The applicant has submitted an Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment prepared by RPS to ensure that the proposed development properly assesses the potential effect on below ground archaeology.
14.2 Policy 7.8 of the adopted London Plan requires developments to assess heritage assets including assets with archaeological interest. Great weight should be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets. Part B of the policy states that development should incorporate measures to identify, record, interpret, protect and where appropriate present the site’s archaeology. Part E of the policy states that new development should protect archaeological resources, landscapes and significant memorials.
Page A25 A26
14.3 Emerging Policy HC1 of the New London Plan states that development proposals affecting heritage assets and their setting should conserve their significance. Development proposals should seek to avoid harm and identify enhancement opportunities by integrating heritage considerations early on in the design process. Proposals should identify assets of archaeological significance and avoid harm or minimise it though design.
14.4 Policy DM12 states that the Council will protect remains of archaeological importance by ensuring acceptable measures are taken proportionate to the significance of the heritage asset to preserve them and their setting, including physical preservation, where appropriate.
14.5 The site is not located within an Archaeological Priority Area and is not within land designated as an Area of Archaeological Significance. The submitted Desk-Based Archaeological Assessment indicates that past post-depositional impacts within the study site are considered likely to have had a severe negative archaeological impact with the site having been subject to redevelopment numerous times from the nineteenth century onwards. No archaeological mitigation measures are considered to be required in association with the proposed development.
14.6 The Historic England Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service (GLAAS) are not a statutory consultee for the application due to the lack of archaeological designations on or in the vicinity of the site. It is noted that the site has been redeveloped a number of times from the nineteenth century onwards and that the proposed development in this case would largely utilise the footprint of the existing building to be demolished. Within this context, it is not considered that the proposed development would have a significant effect on heritage assets of archaeological interest.
15.0 Standard of accommodation
15.1 With regards to internal space standards Policy 3.5 of the London Plan March (2016) sets out minimum internal floor areas required. All of the proposed units would comply with these minimum standards and in many cases exceed them.
15.2 Policy 3.8 of the London Plan 2016 states that 10% of new housing is designed to be wheelchair accessible, or easily adaptable for residents who are wheelchair users. In support of this position Standard 11 of the Mayor’s Housing SPG 2016 states that 90% of new build housing should meet Building Regulation requirement M4(2) “accessible and adaptable dwellings”
Page A26 A27
with the remaining 10 per cent meeting Building Regulation requirement M4(3) “wheelchair user dwellings”. 2 of the proposed units (10%) would be wheelchair user dwellings, with the rest meeting M4(2) standard which would comply with this guidance.
15.3 The Intend to Publish London Plan (2019) Policy D4 3.4.4 advises that dual aspect dwellings with opening windows on at least two sides have many inherent benefits. These include better daylight, a greater chance of direct sunlight for longer periods, natural cross-ventilation, a greater capacity to address overheating, mitigating pollution, a choice of views, access to a quiet side of the building, greater flexibility in the use of rooms, and more potential for future adaptability by altering the use of rooms.
15.4 All of the proposed dwellings would comply with the internal space standards set out by Policy 3.5 of the London Plan (2016) and most units would be dual-aspect. Each dwelling would have access to private amenity space in the form of ground floor gardens or balconies for the upper floors. Where private amenity space provision is not in strict accordance with the Residential Design SPD (2013) policy guidance, any shortfall is incorporated into communal amenity space areas, as is required by the policy guidance. The number of units off a core is considered to be appropriate also and areas of public realm and communal amenity space are overlooked and are considered to be safe and secure.
15.5 The Mayor’s SPG “Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation” requires play facilities to meet the needs of the expected child population through the provision of 10sqm of playable space per child. The child yield for the development, as per the GLA’s Child Yield Calculator, requires 186sqm of children’s play space with 93sqm specifically for doorstep play for 0 – 4 years olds. This would partly be met through the proposed upgrade of the existing communal open space with play equipment, although there would be a shortfall. However, it is noted that the site is within walking distance of recreation space along Elm Road.
15.6 Overall, it is considered that the proposed dwellings would provide a good standard of accommodation for occupants, subject to planning conditions requiring further details of landscaping and public realm improvements.
16.0 Trees and Landscaping
Page A27 A28
16.1 Paragraph 170 of the NPPF states that planning decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by, among other things, recognising the benefits of trees and woodlands
16.2 A Tree Survey, Tree Constraints Plan and a Tree Protection Plan have been submitted as part of the planning application. The submitted information identifies that a recently planted Category C tree would be retained as part of the proposed development which is welcomed by the Tree Officer. The Tree Officer welcomes the additional tree planting proposed in the Indicative Landscape Plan and raises no objection to the proposed development subject to a detailed landscaping plan (including details of additional tree planting) being secured by planning condition.
16.3 Overall, it is considered that the proposed development would be acceptable in arboricultural and landscape terms, subject to planning conditions.
Indicative Landscape Plan
Page A28 A29
17.0 Impact on Residential Amenity of neighbouring sites
17.1 Paragraph 127 of the NPPF (2019) and Policy 7.6 of the London Plan (2016) seek to ensure that development secures a good standard of amenity for all existing and future users (of land and buildings).
17.2 More specifically, Policy DM10 of the LDF Core Strategy (2012) seeks to safeguard residential amenity with regards to privacy, outlook, sunlight/daylight, avoidance of visual intrusion and noise and disturbance.
17.3 The submitted Daylight & Sunlight Assessment states that a good level of daylight and sunlight would be retained at neighbouring dwellings and that the proposed development would be compliant with the BRE guideline recommendations in relation to impact on neighbouring properties with the exception of 37-42 and 43-50 Dale Court which have daylight and sunlight reductions to some windows. However, the daylight distribution assessments show that for the living rooms the minimum level of light received in the proposed condition within the rooms will be 77%, which is still a high level of daylight to receive (against a target level of 80%). The only other rooms affected are bedrooms with the minimum levels of light being received in the proposed condition being 68%, which again is a good level of light to obtain.
17.4 Overall, it is considered that the proposed development would maintain acceptable levels of daylight and sunlight at neighbouring residential dwellings.
17.5 In terms of loss of privacy and overlooking, Policy Guidance 16 (PG13) of the Council’s Residential Design SPD (2013) recommends minimum separation distance between neighbouring properties which should generally be maintained. PG13 is clear that on smaller sites the prevailing character of the area may dictate what separation distances will be and that, where the site topology, landscape features or adequate screening is in place, it may be appropriate to relax the recommended separation distances.
17.6 With reference to neighbouring properties in Dale Court to the north-east and east, the proposed development would maintain a separation distance ranging between 17.3m and 19m between the front elevation of the proposed dwellings and the rear elevations of Dale Court dwellings. In addition to habitable room windows, the flats would be served by external balconies on the eastern elevation which would afford views towards Dale Court properties. While the proposed separation distances would not be in strict accordance with the recommendations of the Residential Design SPD (2013)
Page A29 A30
it is noted that it would be similar to the relationship between the existing Roupell House and these properties, albeit with an additional two-storeys and balconies. Furthermore, it is noted that the site is within the urban area with higher densities of development in the immediate vicinity. On balance, it is therefore considered that the proposed separation distances between the proposed development and properties at Dale Court would be acceptable and would not result in any significant loss of privacy or overlooking when the site context is considered.
Plan showing separation Distances
17.7 Regarding properties to the west accessed via Lowther Road, the proposed development would not result in any direct views towards rear facing habitable room windows at these properties with any views being oblique in nature. The proposed development would result in additional views from the application site towards the rear gardens of Lowther Road dwellings, however, it is not considered that this would result in any significant adverse impact given the tight pattern of development in the area. Regarding Nos. 90
Page A30 A31
and 92 Willoughby Road to the south, it is noted that the proposed separation distance would be 17.9m to the first floor side elevation bedroom window. This is considered to be acceptable given that these windows look out onto Lowther Road, a public space where levels of privacy are usually less than a more conventional ‘back-back’ arrangement.
17.8 Overall, it is considered that the proposed development would not have any unacceptable adverse impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties.
18.0 Air Quality
18.1 Paragraph 170 of the NPPF states that: "Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:
e) preventing new and existing development from contributing to, being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability."
18.2 Paragraph 181 of the NPPF states Planning policies and decisions should sustain and contribute towards compliance with relevant limit values or national objectives for pollutants, taking into account the presence of Air Quality Management Areas and Clean Air Zones, and the cumulative impacts from individual sites in local areas. Opportunities to improve air quality or mitigate impacts should be identified, such as through traffic and travel management, and green infrastructure provision and enhancement.
18.3. The Intend to Publish London Plan policy states measures to design out exposure to poor air quality and noise from both external and internal sources, should be integral to development proposals and be considered early in the design process.
18.4 The Royal Borough of Kingston has declared the whole borough as an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA). The declaration was based on the risk of the objectives for nitrogen dioxide and PM10 being exceeded.
18.5 At the request of the Council’s Environmental Health Air Quality Officer, the applicant has submitted an Air Quality Assessment which concludes that, subject to appropriate mitigation measures, there would be no significant adverse impact in terms of dust from construction works subject to the a Dust Management Plan being secured as part of a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) which could be secured by planning condition. It is stated that overall operational air quality effects of the proposed
Page A31 A32
development would be ‘not significant’ and that the proposed development would comply with the requirement that all new developments in London should be at least air quality neutral.
18.6 The Council’s Environmental Health Air Quality Officer has been reconsulted following the submission of the Air Quality Assessment; their response shall be updated to the Planning Committee as ‘Late Material’.
19.0 Highways and Transportation
19.1. National planning policy directs that in considering developments that generate significant amounts of movements, local planning authorities should take account of whether safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people; and improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limits the significant impacts of the development. It continues by stating that development should only be prevented or refused on highway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network are severe.
19.2 London Plan (2016) Policy 6.13 (Parking) states that the Mayor wishes to see an appropriate balance being struck between promoting new development and preventing excessive car parking provision that can undermine cycling, walking and public transport use.
19.3 Core Strategy (2012) Policies CS5, CS6, DM8 and DM9 are used to assess the potential impact of new development upon the surrounding highway network.The policies aim to reduce the need to travel by locating major trip generating development in accessible locations well served by public transport.
19.4 Policy DM10 states that development proposals should have regard to local traffic conditions and highway safety and ensure that they are not adversely affected. Policy DM9 states that new development should not contribute to congestion or compromise highway safety. Policy CS7 states that car use should be managed to ensure sustainability, road safety and reduce congestion, including car club schemes and the provision of electric vehicle charging points and managing on and off-street parking provision to promote sustainability and residential amenity.
19.5 The site has a PTAL score of 2 (Poor), although it is noted that it adjoins an area with a PTAL score of 3 (Moderate). Elm Road to the north and Park Road to the east form a part of the Borough Strategic Walking and Cycling
Page A32 A33
network. The site is located within Canbury (Zone B) Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ). The site is approximately 500m to the north-east of the Kingston Town Centre boundary and is approximately 780m from Kingston Train Station.
19.6 Cycle Parking: A total of 46 on-site cycle parking spaces (42 long-stay, 4 short-stay) are proposed which would accord with the minimum cycle parking requirements set out in both the London Plan (2016) and the Intend to Publish London Plan (2019). The Council’s Neighbourhood Traffic Engineer has confirmed that the proposed cycle parking layout and number of spaces would be acceptable.
19.7 Car Parking: The proposed development would be ‘Car-Free’ and new residents would not be permitted from applying for on-street parking permits to park on-street. In addition to the above which would be secured by way of a legal agreement (or equivalent), it is stated that an additional bespoke agreement would apply to some of the tenancy agreements which would require future residents to commit to not purchasing or owning vehicles when living with the development.
19.8 The Council’s Neighbourhood Traffic Engineer has reviewed the proposed development and confirms that the site is well-connected in terms of pedestrian/cycle connectivity and is also well served in terms of proximity to bus and rail stations. . Subject to the following measures being secured by planning condition or by way of a Legal Agreement (or equivalent) the Neighbourhood Highway Engineer considers the ‘Car-Free’ development to be acceptable.
● Future occupiers being precluded from obtaining a resident parking permit; ● Pre-commencement planning condition requiring a Construction Logistics Plan; ● Full Travel Plan secured by prior-to-occupation planning condition (ongoing monitoring fees to be stipulated within the legal agreement).
19.9 Highway and Traffic Impact: It is noted that the development would be ‘Car-Free’ and that there would be no vehicular access onto the site. In terms of waste collection and servicing, the majority of the proposed flats would be serviced using the existing arrangements from Florence Road to the north while some of the flats would be served by Lowther Road. The Council’s Neighbourhood Traffic Engineer has reviewed the submitted Transport
Page A33 A34
Statement which satisfactorily demonstrates that servicing and refuse collection could be accommodated as indicated.
19.10 In terms of estimated trip generation, the submitted Transport Assessment concludes that there would be negligible impact on the highway network as residents would not be permitted to apply for on-street car parking permits and, consequently, would utilise sustainable modes of transport such as cycling, public transport or walking. The Neighbourhood Traffic Engineer has requested that a Full Travel Plan should be required by planning condition to promote sustainable modes of travel.
19.11 The Neighbourhood Traffic Engineer has reviewed the proposed development and raises no objection on highway safety or traffic impact grounds. A pre-commencement planning condition requiring the submission of a Construction Logistics Plan (CLP) would be required to ensure satisfactory control measures during the construction phase of development.
19.12 In conclusion it is considered that the proposed development would not have any detrimental impact on the surrounding highway network and would not detrimentally impact on-street car parking stress. Subject to planning conditions and obligations to be secured by way of a Legal Agreement (or equivalent) it is considered that the proposed development would be acceptable in terms of highways and transportation.
20.0 Environment and Sustainability
20.1 Paragraph 148 of the NPPF 2019 states that the planning system should support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate, taking full account of flood risk and coastal change. It should help to: shape places in ways that contribute to radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimise vulnerability and improve resilience; encourage the reuse of existing resources, including the conversion of existing buildings; and support renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure.
20.2 Policy 5.1 of the London Plan (2016) states that there is an aim to achieve an overall reduction in London’s carbon dioxide emissions of 60 percent (below 1990 levels) by 2025. Furthermore, Policy 5.2 states that development proposals should make the fullest contribution to minimising carbon dioxide emissions in accordance with the following points; use less energy, supply energy efficiently, use renewable energy. The LP also requires all major residential developments to be net-zero carbon.
Page A34 A35
20.3 Policy 5.3 states that the highest standards of sustainable design and construction should be achieved in London to improve the environmental performance of new developments and to adapt to the effects of climate change over their lifetime. Development proposals should also demonstrate that sustainable design standards are integral to the proposal, including its construction and operation, and ensure that they are considered at the beginning of the design process.
20.4 Policy DM3 states that design proposals should incorporate climate change adaptation measures based on the type and extent of the main changes expected in the local climate throughout the lifetime of the development, this is likely to require a flexible design that can be adapted to accommodate the changing climate, e.g. provision of additional shading or cooling.
20.5 The application is supported by an Energy Assessment. The submitted Assessment confirms that the proposal adheres to the adopted London Plan energy hierarchy of Be Lean, Be Clean and Be Green.
20.6 There are no planned district heating networks within the vicinity of the proposed development, however, the site is located within a Heat Network Priority Area (Policy SI2 - Minimising Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the ITP London Plan (2019) and one may be planned in the future and as such, Officers consider that the development should be designed to allow future connection to a district heating network. This would be secured via planning conditions.
20.7 In the absence of availability of district heat network before delivery of this scheme, the proposed building incorporates a district electric panel heating system with hot water cylinder to provide hot water. The proposed ‘Be Lean’ energy efficiency measures, along with the district electric panel heating system, would allow the development to achieve a reduction of 47.3% in Regulated CO2 emissions (compared to the Part L 2013 Baseline). Additionally, ‘Be Green’ renewable energy generating technologies are proposed with Solar Photovoltaic Panels (PV) incorporated to provide up to 16.75 kWp. The cumulative saving from the ‘Be Lean’ and ‘Be Green’ measures would be a 54.1% reduction when compared to the Building Regulations Part L 2013 Baseline. The estimated remaining residential Regulated CO2 emissions is calculated to be 11.8 tonnes of CO2 per annum. This remaining carbon would be offset by a cash in lieu contribution which is currently predicted to be £21,240.
Page A35 A36
Indicative Location of PVs
20.8 The proposed development is considered to be acceptable in sustainability terms, subject to conditions/legal agreements related to a Carbon Offsetting financial contribution, future connections to a District Heat Network and ensuring that the residential building meets its respective targets in terms of the relevant Building Regulations.
21.0 Ecology/Biodiversity
Page A36 A37
21.1 Policy 7.19 of the London Plan 2016 states that wherever possible development proposals should be planning for nature from the beginning of the development process and taking opportunities for positive gains for nature through the layout, design and materials of development proposals and that development should make a positive contribution to the protection, enhancement, creation and management of biodiversity.
21.2 Policy DM6 of the Core Strategy 2012 states that new developments should protect and promote biodiversity as part of sustainable design through the inclusion of sustainable drainage, tree planting, soft landscaping, habitat enhancement, green roofs and new or improved semi-natural habitats, where appropriate. The policy goes on to say that the Council requires an ecological assessment on major development proposals, or where a site contains or is next to significant areas of habitat or wildlife potential.
21.3 In its role as a Local Planning Authority, the Council should also be aware of its legal duty under Regulation 9(3) of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 which states that “a competent authority must, in exercising any of their functions, must have regard to the requirements of the Habitats Directive so far as they may be affected by the exercise of those functions”.
21.4 The site is not subject to any statutory or non-statutory nature conservation designations. The proposal does however constitute a major development and therefore an Ecological Appraisal, based on the results of a desktop study and Phase 1 habitat and general faunal survey, has been submitted in support of the application.
21.5 The Phase 1 habitat survey has established that habitats at the site appear to be largely of negligible ecological value and do not form a constraint to the development at the site. It is identified that redevelopment of the site provides opportunities for potential habitat for common birds and mammals such as Hedgehog.
21.6 Regarding bats, it is stated that opportunities for bats within the site are limited. The existing building to be demolished is considered to provide some minor bat roosting potential due to the presence of occasional gaps under fascia boards and damaged hanging tiles, however, due to the heavily urbanised location of the site,current occupation of the buildings and lack of any habitats within the site of value to foraging bats, the building is considered unlikely to support roosting bats.
Page A37 A38
21.7 It is noted that all species of bat and their roost sites are protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and Schedule 2 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (2017). All bats are therefore European Protected species. Offences under this legislation include any activities that may kill, injure or disturb an individual or damages or destroys a breeding site or resting place of that individual. Destruction of a bat roost is therefore an offence, even if the bat is not present at the time of roost removal.
21.8 Paragraph 1.2.3.2 of the Bat Conservation Trust document 'Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists - Good Practise Guidelines' (2016) provides a useful trigger list and guide for when additional surveys may be required, although it is emphasised that the the trigger list is a guide only which should rely on professional judgement and local knowledge. With reference to ‘Box 1 - Trigger List’, the site is not located within, adjacent to, or nearby woodland and water and the applicant’s Ecologists have concluded that the site is unlikely to support roosting bats. The Council’s Biodiversity Officer has reviewed the planning application and submitted assessment and raises no objection to the submitted Ecological Appraisal and the recommendations contained therein.
21.8 In relation to bats, it is considered that an appropriate level of assessment has been carried out and that no further assessment is required at the planning application stage. It is noted that The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) affords legal protections to European Protected Species (EPS) such as bats. Were a bat roost or bats to be encountered during construction works on site there is a legal requirement for the applicant to apply for EPS Mitigation Licence for any works which would have an impact on bats. Officers are therefore satisfied that appropriate safeguards would be in place to ensure that no harm would occur to bats.
21.9 Overall, it is considered that the proposals would not result in harm to biodiversity and that enhancements would be secured as part of the proposed development by planning conditions. These would be captured by way of a planning condition. The proposal would therefore comply with 7.19 of the London Plan, Policies DM3 and DM8 of the RBK Core Strategy and Policies D8 and G6 of the intend to publish London Plan.
22.0 Flood Risk and Drainage
Page A38 A39
22.1 Starting with the NPPF, Paragraph 163 states that when determining any planning applications, local planning authorities should ensure that flood risk is not increased elsewhere and that where appropriate, applications should be supported by a site-specific flood-risk assessment. Development should only be allowed in areas at risk of flooding where, in the light of this assessment (and the sequential and exception tests, as applicable) it can be demonstrated that:
● within the site, the most vulnerable development is located in areas of lowest flood risk, unless there are overriding reasons to prefer a different location; ● the development is appropriately flood resistant and resilient; ● it incorporates sustainable drainage systems, unless there is clear evidence that this would be inappropriate; ● any residual risk can be safely managed; and ● safe access and escape routes are included where appropriate, as part of an agreed emergency plan.
22.2 Paragraph 157 of National Planning Policy Framework indicates that the current and future impacts of climate change should be taken into account within the Flood Risk Assessment.
22.3 Policy 5.12 of the London Plan 2016 requires development proposals to comply with the flood risk assessment and management requirements set out in the NPPF and the associated technical guidance on flood risk over the lifetime of the development.
22.4 Policy 5.13 states that developments should utilise sustainable urban drainage systems (SuDS) unless there are practical reasons for not doing so and should aim to achieve greenfield run-off rates, ensuring that surface water run-off is managed as close to its source as possible. Drainage should also be designed and implemented in ways that deliver other policy objectives of the London Plan, including water use efficiency and quality, biodiversity, amenity and recreation.
22.5 Policy DM4 sets requirements for the submission of flood risk assessments in line with the NPPF. These should address all sources of flooding, the future impact of climate change and take into account the findings of the Borough’s Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (“SFRA”), national guidance and good practice guidance. It also requires developments to include Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDS) to manage and reduce surface water run-off unless it can be demonstrated that such measures are not feasible.
Page A39 A40
22.6 The application site is not located within Fluvial Flood Zones 2 or 3, but is identified as being at low risk of surface water flooding (1 in 1000 risk).
22.7 In support of the application the applicant has submitted a Drainage Strategy prepared by CTP Consulting Engineers. It is stated that for all new areas of hardstanding and the new roof, surface water would be discharged into the existing public sewer via a new connection. Flows would be restricted and attenuated in underground attenuation tanks. It is stated that the discharge rate would be limited to 5 l/s which would be a betterment of more than 50% for the brownfield site.
22.8 The Council’s Flood Risk Officer, in their Lead Local Flood Authority capacity, has reviewed the submitted Drainage Strategy and has raised concern that no evidence has been provided to suggest that rainwater storage, infiltration techniques or above ground SuDS features have been considered in the development proposal. Infiltration testing should be carried out to determine the suitability of options such as permeable paving. Concerns were also raised that the greenfield runoff rate had not been submitted.
22.9 In response to the Flood Risk Officer’s comments the applicant has submitted a new Drainage Strategy dated November 2020. It is confirmed that there would be an increase in impermeable areas on the site of 162sqm. It is further stated why certain forms of SuDS are not considered to be acceptable on the site, but that measures such as permeable paving could be utilised once the geo-environmental site investigation has been undertaken and the suitability of the ground conditions for infiltration has been assessed. It is stated that a greenfield run-off rate would not be feasible. A detailed Management and Maintenance Plan has also been submitted setting out required maintenance works as well as well as frequency.
22.10 The Council’s Flood Risk Officer has been re-consulted on the amended Drainage Assessment and their comments shall be presented to the Planning Committee as Late Material.
23.0 Land Contamination:
23.1 Policy DM1 requires that new development should minimise air, noise and contaminated land impacts in line with industry best practice. Development proposals for contaminated land should include remediation measures.
Page A40 A41
23.2 The Council’s Environmental Health Officer has been consulted and raises no objection in terms of land contamination subject to a planning condition requiring works to be suspended and a detailed remediation strategy being submitted to the Local PLanning Authority for approval in writing, if any contamination is found on the site.
24.0 Refuse
24.1 London Plan Policy 5.7 (Waste Capacity) requires the provision of suitable waste and recycling storage facilities in all new developments. Guidance states that refuse stores should be accessible to all residents and should satisfy local requirements for waste collection. As shown on the proposed plans, the scheme contains refuse and recycling storage as part of the ground floor plan of the proposed building. Full details would be reserved by condition.
25.0 Community Infrastructure
25.1 As of the 1st November 2015 the Council commenced the operation of a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) as a means of collecting monies to provide local infrastructure to offset the impact of developments. This replaced the S106 mechanism for collecting contributions for local infrastructure e.g. education and health with the exception of affordable housing. For the avoidance of doubt S106 contributions can only be collected to resolve site specific issues as a result of the proposed development.
25.2 The application would be Kingston CIL liable. The application would also be liable to pay Mayoral CIL.The CIL charges are subject to the national Tender Price Index. In the event that the All-in Tender Price Index ceases to be published, the index referred to is the retail prices index; and the figure for a given year is the figure for November of the preceding year.
25.3 It is noted on Section 5 (Exemption or Relief) of the submitted CIL - Form 1: Additional Information that the applicant considers the development to include affordable housing which would qualify for mandatory or discretionary Social Housing relief. It is noted that if the applicant intends to claim CIL relief, ‘CIL Form 10: Charitable and/or Social Housing Relief Claim’ must be submitted to the Collecting Authority and any relief must be granted by them prior to the commencement of development. Otherwise the full CIL charge would be payable.
26.0 Agreements
Page A41 A42
26.1 The applicant has agreed to enter into a legal agreement. As the applicant is the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames and the Local Planning Authority cannot covenant with itself in a Section 106 Agreement. In this instance, a Service Level Agreement between the relevant Directors would be agreed to encompass the necessary obligations and contributions that are required to make the development acceptable in planning terms. The following Heads of Terms have been agreed :
○ Car capping - restricting residents from applying for on-street car parking permits within a CPZ ○ A financial contribution to offset any shortfall in CO2 emissions. ○ Travel Plan and monitoring fee ○ Tenure of Affordable Housing
26.2 Subject to the signing of the Service Level Agreement the proposal complies with policies 3.12, 5.1 and 5.2 of the London Plan, (2016) and policies CS10, DM9, DM10 and DM15, DM17 of the LDF Core Strategy, (2012).
27.0 Fire Strategy
27.1 Policy D12 of the London Plan- Intend to Publish Version states “All major development proposals should be submitted with a Fire Statement, which is an independent fire strategy, produced by a third party, suitably qualified assessor.” A fire strategy document has been submitted which sets out the building’s fire safety features and firefighting access facilities.
28.0 Conclusion / Planning Balance 28.1 The Council is not able to demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites, as such, unless the application of policies in the NPPF that protect areas or assets of particular importance (footnote 6 of the NPPF) provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed, planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.
28.2 The proposed development would secure the redevelopment of suitable brownfield land comprising under-utlised buildings for the delivery of dwellings. This carries substantial weight in favour of the development.
28.3 The proposed development would deliver 23 London Affordable Rent (LAR) dwellings. This carries substantial weight in favour of the proposal.
Page A42 A43
28.4 The proposed development would provide only 1 x 3 bedroom unit (4% of total units) which would conflict with the requirements of Policy DM13 of the Kingston Core Strategy (2012). However, taking into account the whole Small Sites Programme along with the significant need for 1 and 2 bedroom affordable units, this conflict is given moderate weight against the development.
28.5 The proposed development would replace the existing unattractive Roupell House with a high quality development that would deliver significant improvements to the quality of public realm and amenity spaces on the site through the delivery of a comprehensive landscaping scheme and play space.
28.6 The proposed development would deliver ephemeral economic benefits associated with construction activities and the potential increased spend in local shops, this would carry moderate weight in favour of the proposal.
28.7 Officers note the concerns raised by the Neighbourhood Committee echoed in parts by local residents, however, subject to the imposition of suitable conditions, the proposed development would provide a good standard of residential accommodation (both internal and external) for the occupants of the proposed flats; would not have any unacceptable adverse impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties. The roof form of the development has been amended to incorporate pitched roofs in response to concerns raised and would represent a high quality development which would make efficient and effective use of an underutilised previously developed site.
28.8 Final consultation responses from Environmental Health - Air Quality Officer and Flood Risk Officer are awaited and will be presented to the Planning Committee as late material. However, it should be noted that the amended information requested by the above consultees has been submitted, no in principle objections have been raised by those consultees, and as such it is anticipated that the technical issues raised have been satisfactorily addressed.
28.9 Officers acknowledge that there would be some loss of light to some residents, however, a good standard of amenity would nonetheless be retained, it is further noted that separation distances would, on occasions, fall below the guidance of 21m, however, it is not unusual in a dense flatted development for this to happen and separation distances would be similar to those shared between the existing Roupell House and neighbouring
Page A43 A44
properties. Notwithstanding, officers conclude that a good standard of accommodation would be achieved for future and existing occupants.
28.10 In conclusion, Officers consider that the proposed development would make optimal use of an underutilised, previously developed site, for the delivery of much needed affordable homes. It is recognised that existing residents would witness a change in context and living conditions, and that the development would not provide a policy compliant mix of units on site. However, Officers conclude that, subject to the conditions/legal agreement (or equivalent), the proposed development would be in accordance with the development plan and it is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted.
Recommendation:
Approve subject to completion of relevant ‘Service Level agreement between the relevant Directors’, as specified in the legal agreements section, and to delegate to the Head of Development Management any consequent changes to conditions and agreements to be agreed in consultation with the Chair of the Development Control Committee, subject to the following conditions:
1 Time Limit
The development hereby permitted shall be commenced within 3 years from the date of this decision.
Reason: In order to comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990. (As amended)
2 Approved plans and documents
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:
KSS-RH-A-P10-001 Red Line P01 KSS-RH-A-P11-GF Proposed Ground Floor Plan P01 P02 KSS-RH-A-P11-001 Proposed Typical Floor 1F to 2F P01 P02 KSS-RH-A-P11-002 Proposed 3F 1: P01 P02 KSS-RH-A-P11-003 Proposed Roof Plan P01 P02 KSS-RH-A-P12-001 Proposed GA Section P01 P02 KSS-RH-A-P13-001 Proposed South Elevation P01 P02 KSS-RH-A-P13-002 Proposed North Elevation P01 P02
Page A44 A45
KSS-RH-A-P13-003 Proposed East Elevation P01 P02 KSS-RH-A-P13-004 Proposed West Elevation P01 P02 KSS-RH-A-P10-002 Proposed Block Plan P01 DAS P02 Landscaping Plan ref: 31345 LC01 Rev D dated 27/11/2020 Energy Report v.3 dated Nov 2020 Sustainability Report v.3 dated Nov 2020 TVIA v1.3 dated Nov 2020 Daylight and Sunlight Report dated 23 November 2020
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
3 Contamination
If, during the course of development, any contamination is found which has not been previously identified, work shall be suspended and additional measures for its remediation shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The remediation of the site shall incorporate the approved additional measures and a verification report for all the remediation works shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To protect human health, controlled waters, and the environment in line with Kingston’s Core Strategy (Adopted April 2012) Policy DM1.
4 Construction hours
The site and building works required to implement the development shall be only carried out between the hours of 08.00 and 18.00 Mondays to Fridays and between 08.00 and 13.00 on Saturdays and not at all on Bank Holidays and Sundays
Reason:To safeguard the amenity of neighbours in accordance with Policy DM10 of the Kingston Core Strategy (2012).
Page A45 A46
5 Secure by Design
The development hereby permitted shall incorporate security measures to minimise the risk of crime and to meet the specific security needs of the development in accordance with the principles and objectives of Secured by Design. Details of these measures shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to commencement of the development and shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details prior to occupation.
Reason: In order to achieve the principles and objectives of Secured by Design to improve community safety and crime prevention in accordance with Policy CS 14 of Kingston Core Strategy: Safer Communities, Policy DM 22 Design for Safety and Policy 7.3 Designing out Crime of the London Plan.
6 Secure by Design Certification
Prior to occupation a Secured by Design final certificate shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In order to achieve the principles and objectives of Secured by Design to improve community safety and crime prevention in accordance with Policy CS 14 of Kingston Core Strategy: Safer Communities, Policy DM 22 Design for Safety and Policy 7.3 Designing out Crime of the London Plan.
7 Materials
The development shall be completed in accordance with samples and/or manufacturing details where applicable for all visible facing materials including fenestration, balconies which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to above ground works (excluding demolition). The development shall then be built in accordance with these approved samples and completed prior to occupation
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance on completion of the development in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012.
Page A46 A47
8 Architectural detailing
Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans additional architectural detailing plans at scale 1:10 showing the balconies, windows, doors, overhangs, rainwater goods, ducts, fans and louvres and their associated reveals and their relationship with the walls/fascias shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to above ground works. The development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance on completion of the development in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012.
10 Landscaping plan
Prior to the beneficial occupation of any unit of accommodation, a detailed landscaping (hard and soft) scheme including details of trees to be planted, wildflowers (the species, size and age to be agreed with the local planning authority in writing), details of the street furniture and play equipment, shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented within the first planting season following completion of the development and the tree planting and landscaping shall thereafter be maintained for five years to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and also that the Local Planning Authority shall be satisfied as to the details of the development in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012.
Page A47 A48
11 Cycle parking
Before the first occupation of the building, details of secure cycle parking facilities for the occupants of, and visitors to, the development hereby approved shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These facilities shall be fully implemented and made available for use prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted and shall thereafter be retained for use at all times.
Reason: To ensure the provision of satisfactory cycle storage facilities and in the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy DM8 (Sustainable Transport for New Developments) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012
12 Refuse management
Refuse storage facilities and recycling facilities shall be provided prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted in accordance with details which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such facilities to be permanently retained at the site. The developer and/or their successors in title shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that all refuse and recyclable materials associated with the development shall either be stored within this dedicated store/area as shown on the approved plans, or internally within the building(s) that form part of the application site, and that no refuse or recycling material shall be stored or placed for collection on the public highway or pavement, except on the day of collection.
Reason: To ensure the provision of refuse facilities to the satisfaction of the Council in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012.
Page A48 A49
13 Energy and Sustainability
Prior above ground works of the development hereby approved, details as to how the approved development has been designed to connect to a future District Heating Network in the surrounding area and provision for the development’s connection shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter permanently retained.
Reason: In the interests of sustainability and energy conservation in accordance with Policies 5.2 (Minimising Carbon Dioxide Emissions) and 5.3 (Sustainable Design & Construction) of the London Plan (July 2011) and Policy DM1 (Sustainable Design and Construction Standards) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012.][EP1]
14 Sustainability and Energy
Prior to occupancy of 50% of the units of the development hereby approved, an assessment carried out by a suitably qualified professional, of the carbon reduction measures implemented within the Development shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of sustainability and energy conservation in accordance with Policies 5.2 (Minimising Carbon Dioxide Emissions) and 5.3 (Sustainable Design & Construction) of the London Plan (March 2016) and Policy DM1 (Sustainable Design and Construction Standards) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012.
15 Biodiversity (Pre commencement)
The development to which this permission relates shall not be commenced (with the exception of demolition) until a scheme to enhance the nature conservation interest of the site has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented in full prior to beneficial occupation of the development.
Reason: To safeguard the biodiversity and nature conservation value of the site, in accordance with policy 7.19 of the London Plan 2016 and policies CS3 and DM6 of the LDF Core Strategy 2012.
Page A49 A50
16 Permitted Development
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order (England) 2015 (as amended) (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no telecommunications equipment shall be installed on the roof of the development hereby approved without the written approval of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance on completion of the development in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012.
17 Construction Management Plan
No development shall take place (including any works of demolition) until a construction management plan or construction method statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved plan/statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The statement shall provide for:
i) How the proposed development will be built; ii) Hours of working (which shall be limited to 08.00 to 18.00 Mondays to Fridays and between 08.00 to 13.00 on Saturdays and not at all on Bank Holidays and Sundays); iii) The procedure for loading/unloading materials; iv) The route to and away from site for muck away and vehicles with materials; v) The protocol for managing deliveries to one vehicle at a time on sites with restricted access or space; vi) The protocol for managing vehicles that need to wait for access to the site; vii) Whether any reversing manoeuvres are required onto or off the public highway into the site and whether a banksman will be provided; viii) Temporary site access; ix) Signing system for works traffic; x) Whether site access warning signs will be required in adjacent roads; xi) Whether it is anticipated that statutory undertaker connections will be required into the site;
Page A50 A51
xii) The storage of plant, materials and operatives vehicles; xiii) The potential for impacts from dust and emissions during the demolition and/or construction phase upon local air quality and surrounding residents; xiv) Measures for the laying of dust, suppression of noise and abatement of other nuisance arising from development works; xv) The location of all ancillary site buildings; xvi) The means of enclosure of the site, its erection and maintenance; xvii) Wheel washing equipment; xviii) The parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; xix) Meeting the requirements of the Low Emission Zone for Non-Road Mobile Machinery (where relevant plant or vehicles are being used); and xx) The method of recycling and disposing of waste resulting from the demolition and/or construction phases
Deliveries/collections to and from the site shall use a route that is agreed with the highway authority and the agreed route shall be signed accordingly.
Reason: These details are required prior to commencement of development because the relevant works would take place at the beginning of the construction phase in order to safeguard the amenities of the surrounding residential occupiers and in the interests of the safety and operation of the highway network, in accordance with policy 6.13 of the London Plan 2016 and policies CS7 and DM9 of the LDF Core Strategy 2012.
18 Travel Plan
Prior to beneficial occupation of the development to which this permission relates, a detailed travel plan comprising immediate, continuing and long-term measures to promote and encourage alternatives to single-occupancy car use shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved plan shall then be implemented and monitored to the satisfaction of the local planning authority, having regard to the targets contained within it.
Reason: To ensure that appropriate opportunities to promote sustainable transport are taken up, in accordance with policy 6.3 of the London Plan 2016 and policies CS6 and DM8 of the LDF Core Strategy 2012.
Page A51 A52
19. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the ‘Energy Statement prepared by Hodkinson dated November 2020’ including the installation of photovoltaic solar panels prior to the beneficial occupation of the approved dwellings. The implemented measures shall be maintained thereafter for the lifetime of the development.
Reason: In the interests of sustainability and energy conservation, in accordance with policy 5.2 of the London Plan 2016 and policies CS1, DM3 and DM4 of the LDF Core Strategy 2012.
20 The development hereby approved shall be carried out in strict accordance with the ‘Tree Protection Plan, Dwg Ref: 05440 Roupell Hse TPP 10.7.20’ prepared by Aspect Tree Consultancy. The approved protection scheme shall be implemented prior to commencement of any work on site including demolition, and be maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority until the completion of the development or until such stage as detailed within the approved information.
Reason: Reason: To safeguard trees worthy of retention and in the interests of the character and appearance of the area, in accordance with policies 7.4 and 7.21 of the London Plan 2016 and policies CS8 and DM10 of the LDF Core Strategy 2012.
21 The levels of buildings, roads, parking areas and pathways within the site shall only be in accordance with details which shall have previously been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development (except demolition) is commenced.
Reason: To ensure that the appearance and functioning of the development is satisfactory and to safeguard the amenities of adjoining occupiers in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012 and comply with Supplementary Planning Document 'Access for All' (July 2005).
Page A52 A53
22 Other than demolition, no works shall be carried out until details demonstrating that all of the accommodation units will meet Building Regulation M4(2) standards and 10% of the units will be designed to be built to standards for wheelchair users (M4(3) standards) has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. This will include details of the location of the wheelchair users units, ensuring these are provided across tenures and unit sizes. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: The details would affect subsequent design of other elements of the scheme and must be agreed at the outset and to ensure that an adequate level of accessible units are provided in accordance with Policy 3.8 of the London Plan (2016), Policy DM13 of the RBK Core Strategy (2012) and the Mayor's Housing SPG (2016).
23 Prior to beneficial occupation of the development to which this permission relates, privacy screening, 1.7m in height as measured from the floor level adjacent to the screen, shall be erected along the north and south sides of the balconies located on the western side of the building (as shown on Drawing No. RH-A-P13-004, Rev02) . Aside from essential fixings, the screen(s) shall be constructed entirely of obscure glazing to a minimum of level 3 on the standard scale. Any film used to achieve the requisite obscurity level shall be non-perishable, tamper-proof, and shall be replaced immediately in the event that it ceases to result in obscurity to level 3.
Reason: To ensure satisfactory living conditions for neighbouring occupiers, in accordance with policy DM10 of the LDF Core Strategy 2012.
Informatives:
1. In dealing with the application the Council has implemented the requirement in the National Planning Policy Framework to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive way. We have made available detailed advice in the form or our statutory policies in the Core Strategy, Supplementary Planning Documents, Planning Briefs and other informal written guidance, as well as offering a full pre-application advice service, in order to ensure that the applicant has been given every opportunity to submit an application which is likely to be considered favorably.
Page A53 A54
2 Your attention is drawn to the need to comply with the relevant provisions of the Building Regulations, the Building Acts and other related legislation. These cover such works as - the demolition of existing buildings, the erection of a new building or structure, the extension or alteration to a building, change of use of buildings, installation of services, underpinning works, and fire safety/means of escape works. Notice of intention to demolish existing buildings must be given to the Council's Building Control Service at least 6 weeks before work starts. A completed application form together with detailed plans must be submitted for approval before any building work is commenced.
3 The Party Wall Act 1996 requires a building owner to notify, and obtain formal agreement from, any adjoining owner, where the building owner proposes to:
i.carry out work to an existing party wall; ii.build on the boundary with a neighbouring property; iii.in some circumstances, carry out groundworks within 6 metres of an adjoining building.
Notification and agreements under this Act are the responsibility of the building owner and are quite separate from Building Regulations, or Planning Controls. The Building Control Service will assume that an applicant has obtained any necessary agreements with the adjoining owner, and nothing said or implied by the Council should be taken as removing the necessity for the building owner to comply fully with the Party Wall Act. Further information and advice is to be found in "The Party Walls etc. Act 1996 - Explanatory Booklet".
4 Your attention is drawn to the fact that planning permission does not override property rights, and that if your proposal involves construction on or near the site boundary then you should take appropriate steps to ensure that you have correctly identified the position of the boundary, that you do not build over it, and that any works which affect a neighbours property in any way have the benefit of the appropriate agreement from the landowner. Failure to undertake the above steps may leave you liable to legal action by neighbouring landowners. If you require further information or advice, you should consult a solicitor.
5 The building/extension that you propose may affect a right of light enjoyed by the neighbouring property. This is a private right which can be acquired by prescriptive uses over 20 years; as such it is not affected in any way by the grant of planning permission.
6 When undertaking demolition and/or noisy building work, please be considerate to your neighbours and do not undertake work before 8am or after 6pm Monday to
Page A54 A55
Friday, before 8am or after 1pm on a Saturday or at any time on Sundays or Bank Holidays.
7 You are advised that the Council does have formal powers to control noise and nuisance under The Control of Pollution Act 1974, the Clean Air Acts and other relevant legislation, and that any works undertaken which impact unreasonably upon the surrounding area may be subject to action by the Council's Environmental Health Department.
8 Please note that this planning application has been assessed against current planning legislation only. The applicant (or any subsequent owner or developer) is therefore reminded that the onus of responsibility to ensure the proposed cladding installation meets current fire safety regulations lies fully with them and that they are legally obliged to apply for the relevant Building Regulations.
9.The proposed development is located within 15m of Thames Water's underground assets, as such the development could cause the assets to fail if appropriate measures are not taken. Please read our guide ‘working near our assets’ to ensure your workings are in line with the necessary processes you need to follow if you’re considering working above or near our pipes or other structures. https://developers.thameswater.co.uk/Developing-a-large-site/Planning-your-develo pment/Working-near-or-diverting-our-pipes.
11.the Council will require the applicant to undertake a road and footway condition survey before construction begins. This will take the form of a joint inspection with a member of the Highways Operation Team and will involve a photographic record and visual observation of the roads, verges and margins. The team would secure some deposit to ensure that repairing cost is covered should any damage result from the construction associated with this site.
12.A license from the Highways Operation will be required to erect off site direction signs. This same team will issue the hoarding license (if necessary) and seek appropriate deposits.
13. During construction, spoil could be carried from the site onto the public highway. The access into the site should be paved to minimise the carryover of spoil onto adjacent roads. We would also require the applicant to sweep and wash down the adjacent roads to ensure that the public highway is kept clear of debris. This is to ensure a satisfactory road surface for road safety reasons at all times.
Page A55 A56
14.The applicant should be advised to consider if a parking suspension might be needed to allow access for big delivery construction vehicles involved. To apply for parking suspension (if needed), the applicant should contact the Environment Contact Centre on 020 8547 5002.
15.Any parking that cannot be contained within the site must park considerately and safely, so as not to obstruct sightlines at junctions or site accesses. The applicant should be aware that any such parking will cause unnecessary concern and agitation within the local community; Should make full use of the site accesses to maximise the availability of off street parking
16.Reasonable efforts have been made to check that the plans submitted for the purposes of this planning application are consistent from one to the next, and that the development hereby approved can be implemented in accordance with all of the plans submitted. Should it transpire that this is not possible and that your plans are flawed, please be clear that it may be impossible to implement this permission, and that any development undertaken which relies on this permission may be unauthorised and subject to enforcement action if expedient.
17. The site is adjacent to the Network Rail corridor and the proposed route for the future delivery of Crossrail 2. The applicant should be aware that Crossrail 2 would result in a higher frequency of trains operating through Chessington South Station. In addition, works to deliver Crossrail 2 will be required at Chessington South Station. At present however, the Crossrail 2 project remains a proposal subject to future decisions by Government on both funding and powers to deliver the railway.
18. Due to the close proximity of the proposed works to Network Rail’s land and the operational railway, Network Rail requests the applicant / developer contacts Network Rail’s Asset Protection and Optimisation (ASPRO) team via [email protected] prior to works commencing. Network Rail’s Asset Protection team will ensure the works can be completed without posing a risk to Network Rail’s infrastructure. The applicant / developer may be required to enter into an Asset Protection Agreement to get the required resource and expertise on-board to enable approval of detailed works. More information can also be obtained from our website https://www.networkrail.co.uk/running-the-railway/looking-after-the-railway/asset-pro tection-and-optimisation/.
Page A56 A57
Development Control Committee Date of Meeting:09 December 2020
Register No: 20/02216/FUL
Site Address: Land To Rear Of 204-210C Cambridge Road, Kingston Upon Thames, KT1 3LU
[Please note that this plan is intended to assist in locating the development; it is not the site plan of the proposed development which may have different boundaries. Please refer to the application documents for the proposed site boundaries.]
Page A57 A58
Ward: Norbiton
Description of proposal: Erection of 5 storey building comprising 18 self-contained residential units (8 x one-bedroom, 9 x two-bedroom and 1 x three-bedroom) with associated landscaping, disabled car parking, refuse and cycle storage.
Plan Type: Full Application
Expiry Date: 18/12/2020
Executive Summary:
Planning permission is sought for the erection of a 5 storey building comprising 18 x residential dwellings with associated disabled car parking, refuse, landscaping and cycle storage.
The proposed 18 dwellings would all be affordable dwellings (100% London Affordable Rent) and would comprises the following dwelling mix:
● 3 bedroom - 1 (6%); ● 2 bedroom - 9 (50%); and ● 1 bedroom - 8 (44%)
The application includes the provision of 2 accessible car parking spaces for proposed residents.
The application includes 36 cycle spaces, of which 4 would be short-stay parking for visitors.
The proposed development comprises a 5 storey building with a maximum height of approximately 16.5m. On 27.11.2020 the applicant submitted a number of revised drawings and technical documents to amend the scheme to reduce the overall site area, to remove the on-site car parking arrangement as originally proposed, to reposition the building more centrally within the site and to increase landscaped areas. For the avoidance of doubt, the scheme as amended by drawings and documents received on 27.11.2020 have been accepted by the Local PLanning Authority and form the basis of the assessment of the planning application.
Page A58 A59
RECOMMENDATION;
Approve subject to completion of relevant ‘Service Level agreement between the relevant Directors’, as specified in the legal agreements section, and to delegate to the Head of Development Management any consequent changes to conditions and agreements to be agreed in consultation with the Chair of the Development Control Committee.
Planning Application Fact Sheet
Planning Proposed Relevant Standard Compliance Issue with Development Plan?
Affordable 100% Affordable 50% of units to be Yes housing Housing (Social provided as affordable Rent) housing
Housing Mix 6% 3 bedroom A minimum of 30% of No units dwellings as 3 or more bedroom units (this figure should be exceeded on sites particularly suited to larger family housing)
Density 342hr/ hectare, Urban: 200-450hr/ha, Yes - however 131 units/ hectare 70–170 u/ha this is guidance
Cycle parking (32 long-stay, 4 29 (28 long-stay and 1 Yes short-stay) short-stay)
Car Parking 2 accessible car Max 0.5 spaces - 1.5 Yes parking spaces spaces per unit (9 - 18 spaces)
Carbon 57.6% 35% with Offset Yes Reduction contribution
Page A59 A60
1.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
1.1. The application site comprises land to the rear of 204-210C Cambridge Road and a strip of land to the south within the Kingsmeadow. The majority of the application site comprises vacant land. To the north of the application site is Nos. 204-210C Cambridge Road, a three storey parade of shops and restaurants with residential accommodation above; to the east there are flatted developments at Cambridge Court and Boundary Close which are up to three-storeys in height. To the south is the Kingsmeadow Stadium and Fitness & Athletic Centre while to the north-east lies three-storey flatted development, the closest of which is Willow Court.
1.2 In terms of planning designations, the site is not located within Fluvial Flood Zones 2 or 3 and is not host to any trees subject to Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs). No statutory listed or locally listed buildings are located on-site or in the immediate vicinity. The site has a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 2 (Poor), although Cambridge Road to the north forms a part of the Borough Strategic Walking and Cycling network. The site is approximately 635m to the south-east of Norbiton Train Station.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL
2.1 Planning permission is sought for the erection of a 5 storey building comprising 18 x residential dwellings with associated disabled car parking, refuse, landscaping and cycle storage. The proposed 18 dwellings would be 100% London Affordable Rent (LAR) and would comprise the following mix of flat sizes:
1 bedroom 8 (44%)
2 bedroom 9 (50%)
3 bedroom 1 (6%)
2.2 The density of the proposed development would be 131u/ha. Each dwelling would have access to private amenity space as well as access to approximately 360sqm of communal amenity space. It is indicated that the proposed sustainability measures could achieve a 57.6% reduction in regulated CO2 emissions over the Part L 2013 baseline.
Page A60 A61
Proposed Block Plan of the development site
3.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
3.1 None of relevance
4.0 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
4.1 Due to the Covid-19 outbreak, the developer conducted “remote” public consultation consisting of leaflets being delivered to 282 addresses, placing an advert in the Surrey Comet, as well as public webinars which were held on the 22nd and 23rd of June followed by Question and Answer sessions. A dedicated project website, email address and phone line was also set up. Full details of public consultation can be found in the submitted Statement of Community Involvement.
5.0 CONSULTATION
5.1 Neighbour notifications: 124 letters were sent to neighbouring properties, site
Page A61 A62
notices were displayed around the site and a press notice was published in the Surrey Comet. Below is a summary of the responses at the time of writing this report:
Number of letters Sent 124
Number of Responses Received 22
Number in Support 0
Number of Objections 22
Number of other Representations 0 (neither objecting or supporting)
Grounds for support Grounds for objection
N/A ● Loss of habitat for slow worms and a locally important area for biodiversity; ● Loss of open grassland for local residents to use; ● Loss of daylight to neighbouring properties; ● Excessive height and bulk; ● Noise; ● Highway capacity/traffic issues; ● Insufficient on-site car parking; ● Construction noise/traffic; ● Overdevelopment; ● The cumulative impact of neighbouring developments could harm wildlife; ● The site falls within Metropolitan Open Land (MOL); and, ● Impact on trees.
Page A62 A63
Other consultee comments:
Consultee Comments
Environment Agency No objection subject to planning conditions relating to (EA) land contamination and surface water drainage strategies
Local Lead Flood No in principle objection - further information Authority (LLFA) requested. Any comments will be reported as late material.
Design Review by See Body of Report Design South East
RBK Neighbourhood No objection in principle - Any further comments to be Traffic Engineer reported as late material
RBK Biodiversity Officer No objection subject to planning conditions relating to biodiversity enhancements, external lighting and mitigation strategy
Thames Water No objection subject to planning informatives
RBK Pollution Control No objection in terms of noise; a land contamination Team assessment would be required by pre-commencement planning condition; no objection in terms of air quality subject to planning conditions
RBK Trees and No objection subject to planning conditions Landscapes Officer
Designing Out Crime No objection subject to planning conditions Officer
Transport for London No Objection
Kingston Housing Team Provide comment on the current Affordable Housing need within the Borough
Kingston Neighbourhood This planning application has been discussed as a Committee consultation item at committee. The following comments were made by Councillors and members of the public against the development:
Page A63 A64
● No solar panels; ● The proposed flat roof would be hard to maintain and is uncharacteristic of the area; ● Biodiversity - harm to Slow Worms; ● Loss of light to neighbours; ● Proximity to the site boundaries; ● Lack of 3 bedroom accommodation; ● Lack of clarity over the boundary; ● Only 8 car parking spaces for 18 flats; ● Biodiversity - any plants should be pollination friendly, fruiting trees, long sword, wildflower strips, bird and bat boxes should be incorporated; ● The submitted Slow Worm survey is incomplete; ● Light levels would decrease to 0% near the boundary
5.2 Following the submission of amended drawings and information on 27.11.2020, a further 124 neighbour notification letters were sent requesting any comments. An additional Site Notice was also placed in the vicinity of the site on 27.11.2020. Any responses received during this additional consultation period will be reported to the Development Control Committee as ‘Late Material’.
6.0 Policies
6.1 The Council as Local Planning Authority has a duty under Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to determine this application in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) (1990 Act) requires local planning authorities when determining planning applications to “have regard to (a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, (b) any local finance considerations, so far as material to the application, and (c) any other material considerations”. At present in relation to this application the relevant parts of the Development Plan consists of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames LDF Core Strategy 2012, The Kingston Town Centre Area Action Plan (AAP) 2008 and the London Plan March 2016.
Page A64 A65
6.2 The Draft London Plan was published in December 2017 and is a material consideration in planning decisions. It gains weight as it moves through the process to adoption and the weight given to the policies is for the decision maker. The Plan is at an advanced stage. Policies contained in the Intend to Publish (ItP) London Plan published in December 2019 that are not subject to a direction by the Secretary of State carry significant weight.
6.3 The latest version of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published in February 2019. This document provides guidance to local planning authorities in producing local plans and in making decisions on planning applications. The NPPF is intended to make the planning system less complex and more accessible by summarising national guidance which replaces numerous planning policy statements and guidance notes, circulars and various letters to Chief Planning Officers. The document is based on the principle of the planning system making an important contribution to sustainable development, which is seen as achieving positive growth that strikes a balance between economic, social and environmental factors. The NPPF falls within the other material considerations of the s.38(6) test.
6.4 The Development Plan remains the cornerstone of the planning system. Planning applications which comply with an up to date Development Plan should be approved. Refusal should only be on the basis of conflict with the Development Plan and other material considerations.
7.0 Assessment
7.1 The main considerations are:
● Principle of Development; ● Affordable Housing; ● Design, Character and Appearance; ● Heritage; ● Archaeology; ● Standard of accommodation; ● Trees and Landscaping; ● Impact on Residential Amenity of Neighbouring Sites; ● Air Quality; ● Highways and Transportation; ● Flood Risk & Drainage; ● Environment and Sustainability; ● Ecology/ Biodiversity; ● Land Contamination;
Page A65 A66
● Refuse; ● Fire Strategy; ● Legal Agreements
8.0 Principle of Development
8.1 Paragraph 118 of the NPPF (2019) states that planning policies and decisions should “promote and support the development of under-utilised land and buildings, especially if this would help to meet identified needs for housing where land supply is constrained and available sites could be used more effectively".
8.2 Paragraph 123 of the NPPF (2019) goes on to say that “Where there is an existing or anticipated shortage of land for meeting identified housing needs, it is especially important that planning policies and decisions avoid homes being built at low densities, and ensure that developments make optimal use of the potential of each site.”
8.3 Paragraph 11 of the NPPF (2019) makes it clear that in terms of the presumption of sustainable development, and in relation to decision taking, development proposals which accord with an up to date development plan should be approved without delay. The Council cannot currently demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites. The “tilted balance” as set out in paragraph 11 of the NPPF is, therefore, engaged.
8.4 Policies 3.3 and 3.4 of the London Plan (2016) emphasise that the Mayor recognises the pressing need for more homes in London, and will work with relevant partners to ensure that housing need is met.
8.5 At the local level LDF Policy CS10 of the Council's LDF Core Strategy (2012) sets out the Borough's housing targets as defined by the London Plan (2011). These have increased since the adoption of the Core Strategy and Kingston currently has a target of 643 new residential dwellings per year under the London Plan (2016).
8.6 The proposal seeks the erection of a five-storey building comprising 18 flats, 100% of which would be London Affordable Rent (LAR). Creating additional residential units within a predominantly residential area on previously developed land would be acceptable in principle, subject to compliance with Development Plan policies.
Page A66 A67
8.7 The application site does not have an open space designation and is located along a main arterial route and benefits from easy access to a number of Bus routes providing access to Kingston Town Centre and beyond, and is within walking distance of Norbiton Railway Station. The site is in a sustainable location with ready access to the services and facilities required to support sustainable development. The principle of creating additional residential units within a predominantly residential area, on previously developed land, would be acceptable in principle, subject to compliance with Development Plan policies.
Conclusion on Principle of Development:
8.8 Overall, the principle of the development is acceptable subject to detailed considerations of the proposal against other development plan policies.
9.0 Housing delivery
9.1 Policy 3.3 of the London Plan March 2016 states that the Mayor recognises the pressing need for more homes in London in order to promote opportunity and provide a real choice for all Londoners in ways that meet their needs at a price they can afford. Working with relevant partners, the Mayor will seek to ensure the housing need identified in paragraphs 3.16a and 3.16b of the London Plan (49,000 (2015-2036) and 62,000 (2015-2026)) is met, particularly through provision consistent with at least an annual average of 42,000 net additional homes across London which will enhance the environment, improve housing choice and affordability and provide better quality accommodation for Londoners.
9.2 Table 3.1 (Annual average housing supply monitoring targets 2015 - 2025) of the London Plan requires the delivery of 6,434 dwellings within the plan period 2015-2025, a rate of 643 dwellings per year within the Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames which is almost double the previous rate of 375 dwellings per year identified in the 2011 London Plan.
9.3 Paragraph 73 of the NPPF directs that local planning authorities should identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide a minimum of five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirement set out in adopted strategic policies.
9.4 Paragraph 11d of the NPPF 2019 indicates that where there are no relevant development plan policies or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out of date (out of date includes, for
Page A67 A68
applications involving the provision of housing, situations where the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites) planning permission should be granted unless:
● the application of policies in the Framework provide a clear reason for refusing the development proposed, or ● any adverse impacts of doing so significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole
9.5 The Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land as required by the NPPF 2019, as such the tests set out in paragraph 11d must be applied. These considerations should be given considerable weight in the assessment of this planning application.
9.6 Policy CS10 of the Core Strategy 2012 states that the Council will seek to ensure that a broad mix of accommodation options are available to residents and that a range of local housing needs are met. It continues that the Council will expect all new residential developments to positively contribute to the Borough’s existing residential environment and character, in accordance with the Borough Character Study 2010, whilst optimising housing output in line with London Plan density policies.
9.7 Table 3.2 of the London Plan (2016) sets out an indicative Unit per Hectare (u/ha) range of 70-170u/ha and 200-450hr/ha for a site within an urban setting with a PTAL of 2-3. However, paragraph 3.28 goes on to state that Table 3.2 should not be applied mechanistically and that density ranges for particular types of location are broad, enabling account to be taken of other factors relevant to optimising potential such as local context, design and transport capacity as well as social infrastructure, open space and play space.
9.8 The proposed development would have a density of 131u/ha and 342hr/ha, this is within the guidance in the density matrix. It is further noted that the site is located in the walking distance of Norbiton Railway station, providing access towards London and connecting stations to other parts of the capital, Surrey and beyond, and is also in walking distance of Kingston town centre which has excellent public transport links As such, the site is located in an area with access to services required to sustain sustainable living.
9.9 The delivery of 18 London Affordable Rent (LAR) dwellings, 6% of which would be capable of family occupation, would contribute positively towards
Page A68 A69
the Council’s housing targets at a time when the Council is unable to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply. The proposal would be in accordance with the relevant housing delivery policies in the development plan.
10.0 Housing Mix
10.1 Policy DM13 of the Council's LDF Core Strategy (2012) states that the Council will ensure that the housing delivered is of high quality and the most appropriate type. The Policy states that new residential development is expected to incorporate a mix of unit sizes and types. Also, Policy DM13 requires that 30% of the proposed units should provide family accommodation (defined as a residential unit containing 3 or more bedrooms), unless it can be robustly demonstrated that this would be unsuitable or unviable.
10.2 The proposed development would provide only 1x 3-bedroom unit (6%) with 9x -bedroom units (50%) and 8x 1-bedroom units (44%). The applicant states in the submitted Planning Statement that due to the site location and constraints, the proposed development could not accommodate a greater proportion of 3 bedroom dwellings. It is stated that the application site is constrained and that there would be limited opportunities for the private amenity and playspace associated with larger 3 bedroom units.
10.3 It is further stated that the current planning application must be viewed within the context of the wider Small Sites programme and that other sites within the programme provide a policy compliant mix of dwellings due to their site context being more conducive to family living.
10.4 The Kingston Housing Team has commented on the planning application outlining the current affordable housing need within the Borough which has been set out in the table below for ease of reference. The Kingston Housing Team welcomes the delivery of additional affordable housing which, when all Small Sites Applications are taken into consideration, would broadly meet the most pressing need and would increase the overall stock of high quality 1 and 2 bedroom dwellings within the Borough.
Page A69 A70
Bedroom Small Sites (Column A) (Column B) Size Provision Households Living Housing Register In Temporary Total Accommodation
1 28.7% (29*) 25.9% (247) 38.8% (1321)
2 46.5% (47) 44.8% (427) 31.5% (1132)
3 24.8% 22.8% (218) 23.8% (854)
4 0% 5.9% (56) 6.7% (242)
5+ 0% 0.6% (6) 1.2% (42)
*Actual numbers are noted in brackets
10.5 The arguments put forward by the applicant and the consultation response from the Council’s Housing Team about overall affordable housing need within the Borough are noted. It is also noted that the current Small Sites Programme planning applications would collectively provide approximately 24.8% 3 bedroom units. However, Policy DM13 is clear that each site must incorporate an appropriate mix of units including a minimum of 30% of dwellings as 3 or more bedroom units unless it can be robustly demonstrated that this would be unsuitable or unviable.
10.6 The proposed development at Cambridge Road would provide only 1x 3 bedroom unit (6% of the on-site total) which would fall well short of the 30% required by Policy DM13 and it has not been robustly demonstrated that the site would be unsuitable for a policy compliant mix of units. This is a disbenefit of the scheme which must be afforded an appropriate level of weight.
10.8 On a strategic level, it is noted that there is evidence of significant numerical demand for 1 and 2 bedroom affordable housing units with over 674 people in urgent need of this size of unit within the Borough. While the proposed unit mix would not provide 30% 3 bedroom units as is required by Policy DM13, it would nonetheless meet a significant overall need for affordable housing within the Borough.
10.10 The departure from strict compliance with the requirements of Policy DM13 shall be considered further in the overall Planning Balance section below alongside other benefits/disbenefits of the scheme.
Page A70 A71
11.0 Affordable Housing
11.1 London Plan Policy 3.9 seeks to promote mixed and balanced communities by tenure and household income and Policy 3.12 seeks to secure the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing. Policy H5 of the draft London Plan and the Mayor’s Affordable Housing and Viability SPG page 5 set a strategic target of 50% affordable housing. Policy H6 of the draft London Plan and the Mayor’s Affordable Housing and Viability SPG set out a ‘threshold approach’ whereby schemes meeting or exceeding a specific threshold of affordable housing (35% or 50% on industrial/public land) by habitable room without public subsidy and which meets other criteria are not required to submit viability information to the GLA, nor would the application be subject to a late stage review mechanism.
11.2 In support of this stance Core Strategy Policy CS10 seeks to maximise the delivery of affordable housing. Furthermore, Policy DM15 requires 50% of the units to be provided as affordable housing and proposals departing from these requirements will be expected to justify any lower provision through the submission of a financial appraisal. DM15 also seeks to achieve a 70:30 tenure split between Social/affordable Rent and Intermediate housing. The Mayor of London’s preferred Tenure split is 30% London Affordable Rent, 40% capped affordable rents and 30% intermediate.
11.3 The proposed development comprises 18 London Affordable Rent (LAR) units. LAR units are defined under Policy H6 (Affordable Housing Tenure) of the Intend to Publish London Plan (2019) as being homes for households on low incomes where the rent levels are based on the formulas in the Social Housing Regulator’s Rent Standard Guidance. LAR rent homes are capped at benchmark levels by the Greater London Authority (GLA). Rents for LAR are significantly less than 80% of market rents, which is the maximum for Affordable Rent permitted by the NPPF (2019). The homes would be allocated in accordance with need (based on the Borough’s allocations policy). Once substantially completed, the development could provide decant accommodation for residents of the Cambridge Road Estate which is scheduled for regeneration.
11.4 The provision of 100% LAR housing is welcomed. It is noted in the most recent Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) (2016) that across the Housing Market Area (HMA) over 80% of future annual demand will be for homes at social rent levels which include London Affordable Rent. Within this context it is considered that the proposed LAR tenure would be acceptable and would be in broad accordance with development plan policies.
Page A71 A72
12.0 Design, Character and Appearance
12.1 Paragraph 124 of the NPPF 2019 states that the Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. It states that ‘The creation of high quality buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve’ and ‘Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, creates better places in which to live and work and helps make development acceptable to communities.’ Paragraph 130 states inter alia that where the design of a development accords with clear expectations in plan policies, design should not be used by the decision-maker as a valid reason to object to development.
12.2 Policy DM10 of the Core Strategy 2012 states that new development proposals will be required to incorporate principles of good design and those elements that are identified as contributing to the character and local distinctiveness of a street or areas which should be respected, maintained or enhanced.
12.3 Policy DM11 of the Core Strategy 2016 states that the Council should take a more flexible approach to new development where the existing development lacks any identifiable or cohesive character and / or is located in a lower quality environment; in these circumstances it will seek a high quality development that creates its own distinctive character.
12.4 The Intend to Publish London Plan at paragraph 3.3.6 states that “Good design and good planning are intrinsically linked. The form and character of London’s buildings and spaces must be appropriate for their location, fit for purpose, respond to changing needs of Londoners, be inclusive, and make the best use of the city’s finite supply of land. The efficient use of land requires optimisation of density. This means coordinating the layout of the development with the form and scale of the buildings and the location of the different land uses, and facilitating convenient pedestrian connectivity to activities and services”.
12.5 The Kingston Character Study (2011) states in relation to the Cambridge Road Character Area (within which the application site falls) that: ‘The height and mass of the tower blocks are well set apart—the key character issue is the ground level which is disturbing. The public realm has disappeared. No ownership, unclear routes. Garages as inactive edge. Suggest remodelling blocks/removing garages. Potential to redevelop estate with replacement taller towers with clearer defined, high quality ground-scape. The buildings of
Page A72 A73
Cambridge Gardens make a strong and interesting townscape, enhancing the architecture of the area.’
12.6 Design Review Panel (DRP): The applicant undertook a design review held on 21 October 2020. In summary the Panel concluded:
‘This site has the most challenging conditions of all those within the programme. Although the team have demonstrated thorough consideration of options, it may be possible that there is an alternative site strategy that could have proved more successful for this site. Notwithstanding, alterations could be made to this scheme which would still facilitate a quality proposal.
12.7 Specifically in relation to landscape the DRP comment that:
The south of the site is the basic premise for the proposal, which necessitates a substantial amount of hard surfacing from the north to south link drive, and this amounts to a disproportionate amount of hard to soft landscape. To respond to the need for additional soft landscape spaces, the team may wish to consider an alternative landscape treatment to the hardstanding currently proposed on the south of the building, such as using Golpla. Resident experience should be prioritised, and consideration to how larger garden areas could be provided in the sunniest part of the site.
We reiterate our previous comments regarding the need for more detail on the landscape and planting design, choosing species appropriate to the garden or parking area of the design.
Hedges and soft landscape treatments to facilitate biodiversity and connectivity at boundaries with adjoining landscape should be strongly considered.
12.8 Specifically in relation to architecture the DRP comment that:
We are comfortable with the proposed scale and mass and have no significant issue with the architectural proposal, however, coordination of building services at an early stage will be needed to ensure the deliverability of the indicative quality of the computer-generated images. Darker colour accents may be more appropriate than the white render and ensure longevity of the building fabric.’
12.9 The DRP recommended alterations to the site layout to better utilise the southern aspect of the site to ensure a better standard of communal amenity
Page A73 A74
space and biodiversity value. In relation to the architecture, the DRP advised that coordination of building services at an early stage would be needed to ensure that the proposed materials would be deliverable. In terms of materials, detailed specifications would be required by planning condition.
12.10 The planning application was presented to the Kingston Town Neighbourhood Committee on 02.11.2020 as a planning consultation item. Concerns were raised by members as well as local residents that the proposed flat roof form would not relate well to the character of the area and could result in increased maintenance costs. Concerns were also raised about the proximity of development to neighbouring boundaries.
12.11 Following the Neighbourhood Committee the applicant submitted revised drawings on 27.11.2020 which have reduced the site area by approximately 5.5m in depth to reduce the amount of land-take from Kingsmeadow to the south. The revisions to the scheme can be summarised as follows:
● Position of the building moved to the south-west to accommodate the amended access/servicing arrangements; ● Private garden area as well as internal access for the ground floor M4(3) dwellings; ● The previously proposed on-site car parking/turning area has been removed from the scheme with the north-west and southern parts of the site now proposed as communal/private amenity space. ● The scheme now includes 2 accessible car parking spaces ● A number of minor changes to the elevations and detailing of the proposed building have also been incorporated.
12.12 In terms of the architectural approach, it is noted that the site is backland and would not be highly visible from the public highway on Cambridge Road. The character of buildings along the southern side of Cambridge Road is a mixture of varying ages, styles and quality while the buildings in the vicinity of the site are primarily of 50s/60s construction and lack a cohesive character with varied block widths, heights (two-four storeys) as well as a range of roof forms (flat, pitched, hipped and mansard). Within this context, it is considered that the proposed roof form and architectural approach would be acceptable and would not be harmful in character or design terms.
12.13 In terms of height, massing and scale, it is considered that the massing is appropriate and would be similar to the scale and massing of neighbouring developments Cambridge Court, Willow Court, Maple Court and Lime Court. The proposed building would be set well away from Cambridge Road and
Page A74 A75
would not be incongruous when glimpsed from within the street scene. The use of brick for the primary elevational treatment would be in keeping with the materiality in the locality and is supported in principle, subject to detailed specifications and samples being secured by way of planning condition.
12.14 In terms of site layout, it is considered that the proposed building would sit comfortably within the site. The removal of the proposed vehicular car parking spaces on the southern part of the site as originally submitted and its replacement with private and communal amenity space would make better use of the southerly aspect of the site. The proposed landscaping improvements would include additional tree and shrub planting as well as playspace which would represent an improvement on the existing scruffy appearance of this backland site.
12.15 Overall, it is considered that the proposed development would be of an acceptable character and design which would relate well to the character and appearance of the wider area. The proposal would be of an appropriate layout, form, and scale which would respond well to its local context. The proposed development would provide a play area alongside improved public realm and landscaping which would be a benefit of the scheme.
Page A75 A76
Indicative Landscape Plan
13.0 Heritage
13.1. The site is not located within a Conservation Area and the closest statutory listed buildings to the site are the Kingston Cemetery buildings approximately 350m to the west of the application site. The separation distance between the proposal and designated heritage assets is such that there would be no direct impact or harm to their significance.
14.0 Archaeology
14.1 The applicant has submitted an Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment prepared by RPS to ensure that the proposed development properly assesses the potential effect on below ground archaeology.
Page A76 A77
14.2 Policy 7.8 of the adopted London Plan requires developments to assess heritage assets including assets with archaeological interest. Great weight should be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets. Part B of the policy states that development should incorporate measures to identify, record, interpret, protect and where appropriate present the site’s archaeology. Part E of the policy states that new development should protect archaeological resources, landscapes and significant memorials.
14.3 Emerging Policy HC1 of the New London Plan states that development proposals affecting heritage assets and their setting should conserve their significance. Development proposals should seek to avoid harm and identify enhancement opportunities by integrating heritage considerations early on in the design process. Proposals should identify assets of archaeological significance and avoid harm or minimise it though design.
14.4 Policy DM12 states that the Council will protect remains of archaeological importance by ensuring acceptable measures are taken proportionate to the significance of the heritage asset to preserve them and their setting, including physical preservation, where appropriate.
14.5 In terms of local designations, the southwestern corner of the site is located within the north-eastern boundary of the Hogsmill Valley Archaeological Priority Area which has modest archaeological potential for the later prehistoric periods. The submitted assessment concludes that past post-depositional impacts within the study site are considered likely to have had a negative archaeological impact; no further archaeological mitigation measures are recommended.
14.6 The Historic England Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service (GLAAS) has been consulted on this application due to the local archaeological designation. GLAAS conclude in their response that the proposed development is unlikely to have a significant effect on heritage assets of archaeological interest and that it is likely that previous development on the site will have removed archaeological remains. GLAAS conclude that no further assessment or conditions are therefore necessary. It is therefore concluded that the proposed development would not have any significant adverse impact on heritage assets of archaeological interest.
15.0 Standard of accommodation
15.1 With regards to internal space standards Policy 3.5 of the London Plan March (2016) sets out minimum internal floor areas required. All of the
Page A77 A78
proposed units would comply with these minimum standards and in many cases exceed them.
15.2 Policy 3.8 of the London Plan 2016 states that 10% of new housing is designed to be wheelchair accessible, or easily adaptable for residents who are wheelchair users. In support of this position Standard 11 of the Mayor’s Housing SPG 2016 states that 90% of new build housing should meet Building Regulation requirement M4(2) “accessible and adaptable dwellings” with the remaining 10 per cent meeting Building Regulation requirement M4(3) “wheelchair user dwellings”. 2 of the proposed units (10%) would be wheelchair user dwellings, with the rest meeting M4(2) standard which would comply with this guidance.
15.3 The Intend to Publish London Plan (2019) Policy D4 3.4.4 advises that dual aspect dwellings with opening windows on at least two sides have many inherent benefits. These include better daylight, a greater chance of direct sunlight for longer periods, natural cross-ventilation, a greater capacity to address overheating,mitigating pollution, a choice of views, access to a quiet side of the building, greater flexibility in the use of rooms, and more potential for future adaptability by altering the use of rooms.
15.4 All of the proposed dwellings would comply with the internal space standards set out by Policy 3.5 of the London Plan (2016) and all of the proposed units would be dual-aspect. Each dwelling would have access to private amenity space in the form of ground floor gardens or balconies for the upper floors. Where private amenity space provision is not in strict accordance with the Residential Design SPD (2013) policy guidance, any shortfall is incorporated into communal amenity space areas, as is required by the policy guidance.
15.5 The Mayor’s SPG “Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation” requires play facilities to meet the needs of the expected child population through the provision of 10sqm of playable space per child. The child yield for the development, as per the GLA’s Child Yield Calculator, requires 60sqm of Under 5 children’s playspace with a further 60sqm to be provided for children of other ages. This would partly be met through the proposed 79sqm of Under 5 children’s play space. It is also noted that Kingston Recreation Ground is approximately 195m to the south-east of the site and would provide further opportunities for play and recreation.
Page A78 A79
15.6 Overall, it is considered that the proposed dwellings would provide a good standard of accommodation for occupants, subject to planning conditions requiring further details of landscaping and public realm improvements.
16.0 Trees and Landscaping
16.1 Paragraph 170 of the NPPF states that planning decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by, among other things, recognising the benefits of trees and woodlands
16.2 A Tree Survey, Tree Constraints Plan and a Tree Protection Plan have been submitted as part of the planning application. The submitted information identifies that a number of Category C trees would need to be removed. Category C Trees are defined as: ‘Those of low quality and value with an estimated remaining life expectancy of at least 10 years, or young trees with a stem diameter below 150mm’. A Category B tree along the southern boundary of the site would also need to be removed to facilitate the proposed development. The submitted Tree Survey confirms that this tree is of moderate quality due to the form and relationship of the primary limbs as well as its limited height which is considered to preclude it from having a high contribution to the locality.
16.3 The Tree Officer welcomes the additional tree planting proposed in the Indicative Landscape Plan and raises no objection to the proposed development subject to a detailed landscaping plan (including details of additional tree planting) being secured by planning condition.
16.4 Overall, it is considered that the proposed development would be acceptable in arboricultural and landscape terms, subject to planning conditions.
Page A79 A80
Indicative Landscape Plan
17.0 Impact on Residential Amenity of neighbouring sites
17.1 Paragraph 127 of the NPPF (2019) and Policy 7.6 of the London Plan (2016) seek to ensure that development secures a good standard of amenity for all existing and future users (of land and buildings).
17.2 More specifically, Policy DM10 of the LDF Core Strategy (2012) seeks to safeguard residential amenity with regards to privacy, outlook, sunlight/daylight, avoidance of visual intrusion and noise and disturbance.
17.3 In support of the application, the applicant has submitted a Daylight & Sunlight Assessment which assesses the impact of the proposed development on adjacent sensitive receptors. A revised Daylight & Sunlight Assessment was prepared following the amendments to the scheme on 27.11.2020. In terms of 1-12 Lime Court and 1-9 Boundary Close, it is stated that these properties would maintain full adherence to the recommendations set out in the BRE guidelines. For 204-210 Cambridge Road and 1-8
Page A80 A81
Cambridge Court, the proposed development would have very minor effects to each of these properties, but good levels of daylight and sunlight would be retained nonetheless with all windows tested adhering to the BRE guidelines, either obtaining at least 27% VSC in the proposed condition or having ratio reductions 0.8 times their former value or higher with the exception of 1 window at 1-8 Cambridge Court
17.4 With reference to Willow Court, the Vertical Sky Component (VSC) results show that 29 of the 35 tested windows would adhere to the BRE guidelines either obtaining at least 27% VSC in the proposed condition or having ratio reductions 0.8 times their former value or higher. It is noted that the 6 windows which would fall below the BRE guideline recommendations are secondary windows and that the daylight distribution assessments demonstrate that there would be no noticeable reduction in daylight when taking into consideration the other windows lighting the respective rooms.
17.5 It is concluded that the proposed development would maintain acceptable daylight and sunlight levels to the neighbouring residential properties. Overall, it is considered that the proposed development would not have any significant or unacceptable adverse impact on neighbouring properties in terms of loss of daylight/sunlight.
17.6 In terms of loss of privacy and overlooking, Policy Guidance 16 (PG13) of the Council’s Residential Design SPD (2013) recommends minimum separation distance between neighbouring properties which should generally be maintained. PG13 is clear that on smaller sites the prevailing character of the area may dictate what separation distances will be and that, where the site topology, landscape features or adequate screening is in place, it may be appropriate to relax the recommended separation distances.
17.7 The proposed separation distance between habitable rooms at the proposed development and Nos. 204 - 210C Cambridge Road would be a minimum of 22.7m which would be in accordance with the recommendations of PG13. In terms of neighbouring 1-12 Willow Court to the north-west and Nos. 13-15 Boundary Close to the south-east, the proposed development would maintain separation distances of 13m and 13.4m respectively.
Page A81 A82
Plan showing separation distances
17.8 Regarding Willow Court, it is noted that there would be a number of bedroom and secondary living room windows and balconies on the western elevation of the proposed building. Reviewing planning permission ref: 13/12763/FUL at Willow Court, which would appear to have been implemented, the affected windows at Willow Court would appear to be secondary windows serving living rooms and bedrooms. It is further noted that that planning permission ref: 13/12763/FUL extended development up to 2m from the shared boundary with the application site. In terms of its relationship with neighbouring developments, Willow Court is approximately 12m from Lime Court to the north-east and Maple Court to the north-west. This separation distance would not be strictly in accordance with PG13, however, it is an established relationship which is not unusual for denser flatted development in the area. Within this context, it is not considered that the proposed separation distances between the proposed development and properties at Willow Court would manifest in any significant or unacceptable loss of privacy to dwellings at these properties.
Page A82 A83
17.9 In terms of Nos. 13-15 Boundary Close to the south-east, the proposed development would maintain a separation distance of approximately 13.4m. Reviewing planning permission ref: 06/12480/FUL which granted planning permission for the erection of Nos. 13-15 Boundary Close, it would appear that the windows on the north-western elevation are secondary living/dining room windows with additional windows providing outlook to the north and south. While the proposed separation distance of 13.4m would not be in strict accordance with PG13, it is noted that the affected windows are secondary in nature. The proposed separation distances are considered to be characteristic of development of this density in the area.
17.10 Overall, it is considered that the proposed development would not have any unacceptable adverse impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties.
18.0 Air Quality
18.1 Paragraph 170 of the NPPF states that: "Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:
e) preventing new and existing development from contributing to, being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability."
18.2 Paragraph 181 of the NPPF states Planning policies and decisions should sustain and contribute towards compliance with relevant limit values or national objectives for pollutants, taking into account the presence of Air Quality Management Areas and Clean Air Zones, and the cumulative impacts from individual sites in local areas. Opportunities to improve air quality or mitigate impacts should be identified, such as through traffic and travel management, and green infrastructure provision and enhancement.
18.3. The Intend to Publish London Plan policy states measures to design out exposure to poor air quality and noise from both external and internal sources, should be integral to development proposals and be considered early in the design process.
18.4 The Royal Borough of Kingston has declared the whole borough as an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA). The declaration was based on the risk of the objectives for nitrogen dioxide and PM10 being exceeded.
Page A83 A84
18.5 The applicant has submitted an Air Quality Assessment (AQA) in support of the planning application. The submitted assessment demonstrates that future residents of the development would experience acceptable air quality, with pollutant concentrations below the air quality objectives. The proposed development would provide heat and hot water through the use of mains electricity and there would therefore be no significant point of source emissions. Overall, it is concluded that the construction and operational air quality effects of Cambridge Road would be ‘not significant’.
18.6 The Environmental Health - Air Quality Officer has reviewed the submitted AQA and has raised no objection to the proposal subject to the planning conditions requiring the submission of a Damage Cost Assessment as well as well as details of how dust and emissions during construction and demolition would be controlled, prior to the commencement of development. Subject to the planning conditions requested by the Air Quality Officer, it is considered that the proposed development would be acceptable in terms of air quality.
19.0 Highways and Transportation
19.1. National planning policy directs that in considering developments that generate significant amounts of movements, local planning authorities should take account of whether safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people; and improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limits the significant impacts of the development. It continues by stating that development should only be prevented or refused on highway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network are severe.
19.2 London Plan (2016) Policy 6.13 (Parking) states that the Mayor wishes to see an appropriate balance being struck between promoting new development and preventing excessive car parking provision that can undermine cycling, walking and public transport use.
19.3 Core Strategy (2012) Policies CS5, CS6, DM8 and DM9 are used to assess the potential impact of new development upon the surrounding highway network.The policies aim to reduce the need to travel by locating major trip generating development in accessible locations well served by public transport.
19.4 Policy DM10 states that development proposals should have regard to local traffic conditions and highway safety and ensure that they are not adversely
Page A84 A85
affected. Policy DM9 states that new development should not contribute to congestion or compromise highway safety. Policy CS7 states that car use should be managed to ensure sustainability, road safety and reduce congestion, including car club schemes and the provision of electric vehicle charging points and managing on and off-street parking provision to promote sustainability and residential amenity.
19.5 The application site has a PTAL of 2 (Poor) and neighbours areas with a PTAL of 1b (Very Poor), although Cambridge Road to the north forms a part of the Borough Strategic Walking and Cycling network. The site is approximately 635m to the south-east of Norbiton Train Station.The application site itself is not located within a CPZ, although Cambridge Road as well as some roads to the north are subject to parking and loading restrictions.
19.6 The application initially proposed 8 on-site car parking spaces for the proposed 18 dwellings. However, the layout of the proposed development was amended on 27.11.2020 reducing the on-site car parking provision to 2 accessible car parking spaces. With the exception of the 2 accessible car parking spaces, it is stated that the development would be ‘Car-Free’ and that a bespoke clause would be added to the tenancy agreement for each dwelling to ensure that the residents and/or tenants are aware that they have no right to park on-site, nor to apply for on-street car parking permits.
19.7 Cycle Parking: A total of 36 on-site cycle parking spaces (32 long-stay, 4 short-stay) are proposed which would accord with the minimum cycle parking requirements set out in both the London Plan (2016) and the Intend to Publish London Plan (2019).
19.8 Car Parking: With the exception of 2 accessible car parking spaces, the proposed development would be ‘Car-Free’. It is stated that an additional bespoke agreement would apply to some of the tenancy agreements which would require future residents to commit to not purchasing or owning vehicles when living within the development. It is noted that the application does not currently fall within a CPZ and that the proposed development could potentially lead to the parking demand generated by the development increases on-street car parking pressures on roads to the north. The Council’s Neighbourhood Traffic Engineer has been consulted on the amended planning application and their comments shall be presented to the Development Control Committee as Late Material.
Page A85 A86
19.9 Highway and Traffic Impact: It is noted that the development would be ‘Car-Free’ with the exception of 2 on-site accessible car parking bays. In terms of waste collection and servicing, it is stated that the development would accommodate delivery and servicing trips on site with the turning head allowing larger vehicles to enter and egress the site in a forward gear. The applicant has also submitted an Outline Travel Plan which sets out measures to promote sustainable modes of travel to and from the site.
19.10 The Council’s Neighbourhood Traffic Engineer were consulted on the planning application as originally submitted and raised no objection subject to planning conditions and obligations to be secured by way of a legal agreement (or equivalent). The Neighbourhood Traffic Engineer has been consulted on the amended planning application and their comments shall be presented to the Development Control Committee as Late Material.
20.0 Environment and Sustainability
20.1 Paragraph 148 of the NPPF 2019 states that the planning system should support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate, taking full account of flood risk and coastal change. It should help to: shape places in ways that contribute to radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimise vulnerability and improve resilience; encourage the reuse of existing resources, including the conversion of existing buildings; and support renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure.
20.2 Policy 5.1 of the London Plan (2016) states that there is an aim to achieve an overall reduction in London’s carbon dioxide emissions of 60 percent (below 1990 levels) by 2025. Furthermore, Policy 5.2 states that development proposals should make the fullest contribution to minimising carbon dioxide emissions in accordance with the following points; use less energy, supply energy efficiently, use renewable energy. The LP also requires all major residential developments to be net-zero carbon.
20.3 Policy 5.3 states that the highest standards of sustainable design and construction should be achieved in London to improve the environmental performance of new developments and to adapt to the effects of climate change over their lifetime. Development proposals should also demonstrate that sustainable design standards are integral to the proposal, including its construction and operation, and ensure that they are considered at the beginning of the design process.
Page A86 A87
20.4 Policy DM3 states that design proposals should incorporate climate change adaptation measures based on the type and extent of the main changes expected in the local climate throughout the lifetime of the development, this is likely to require a flexible design that can be adapted to accommodate the changing climate, e.g. provision of additional shading or cooling.
20.5 The application is supported by an Energy Assessment. The submitted Assessment confirms that the proposal adheres to the adopted London Plan energy hierarchy of Be Lean, Be Clean and Be Green.
20.6 There are no planned district heating networks within the vicinity of the proposed development, however, one may be planned in the future and as such, Officers consider that the development should be designed to allow future connection to a district heating network. This would be secured via planning conditions.
20.7 In the absence of availability of district heat network before delivery of this scheme, the proposed building incorporates a district electric panel heating system with hot water cylinder to provide hot water. The proposed ‘Be Lean’ energy efficiency measures, along with the district electric panel heating system, would allow the development to achieve a reduction of 46.8% in Regulated CO2 emissions (compared to the Part L 2013 Baseline).
20.8 Additionally, ‘Be Green’ renewable energy generating technologies are proposed with Solar Photovoltaic Panels (PV) incorporated to provide up to 20.5 kWp. The cumulative saving from the ‘Be Lean’ and ‘Be Green’ measures would be a 57.6% reduction when compared to the Building Regulations Part L 2013 Baseline. The estimated remaining residential Regulated CO2 emissions is calculated to be 8.1 tonnes of CO2 per annum. This remaining carbon would be offset by a cash in lieu contribution which is currently predicted to be £14,499.
20.9 The proposed development is considered to be acceptable in sustainability terms, subject to conditions/legal agreements related to a Carbon Offsetting financial contribution, future connections to a District Heat Network and ensuring that the residential building meets its respective targets in terms of the relevant Building Regulations.
Page A87 A88
Indicative Location of PVs
21.0 Ecology/Biodiversity
21.1 Policy 7.19 of the London Plan 2016 states that wherever possible development proposals should be planning for nature from the beginning of the development process and taking opportunities for positive gains for nature through the layout, design and materials of development proposals and that development should make a positive contribution to the protection, enhancement, creation and management of biodiversity.
21.2 Policy DM6 of the Core Strategy 2012 states that new developments should protect and promote biodiversity as part of sustainable design through the inclusion of sustainable drainage, tree planting, soft landscaping, habitat enhancement, green roofs and new or improved semi-natural habitats, where appropriate. The policy goes on to say that the Council requires an
Page A88 A89
ecological assessment on major development proposals, or where a site contains or is next to significant areas of habitat or wildlife potential.
21.3 In its role as a Local Planning Authority, the Council should also be aware of its legal duty under Regulation 9(3) of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 which states that “a competent authority must, in exercising any of their functions, must have regard to the requirements of the Habitats Directive so far as they may be affected by the exercise of those functions”.
21.4 The site is not subject to any statutory or non-statutory nature conservation designations. The proposal does however constitute a major development and therefore an Ecological Appraisal, based on the results of a desktop study and Phase 1 habitat and general faunal survey, has been submitted in support of the application.
21.5 The survey area was identified as having habitat suitable for Slow Worms, and further survey work was undertaken during July 2020 which identified a peak adult count of 10 adult Slow Worms, a ‘good’ population under current guidance. Slow Worms listed in Schedule 5 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (hereafter referenced to as ‘the Act’). Under Section 9(1) of the Act Slow Worms are protected against intentional killing and injuring but not ‘taking;. Under Section 9(5) it is an offence to offer for sale, transport for sale, advertise for the purpose of trading any live, dead, part, or derivative of Slow Worms. Section 9 applies to all stages in their life cycle.
21.6 As part of the proposed development the applicant proposed that a habitat manipulation exercise is undertaken to move individual Slow Worms away from construction areas to retained and enhanced areas of the development site and suitable nearby habitat. The submitted Ecological Appraisal recommends that the habitat manipulation is supplemented with the placement of refugia which would be checked during the course of the destructive search and any captured animal moved to retained habitat.
21.7 The destructive search will involve cutting the grassland within the development footprint to a short height (~15cm) so as to encourage reptiles to disperse to suitable areas of retained / nearby habitat, whilst also allowing for a fingertip search of the area. This exercise should be carried out under the supervision of a competent ecologist during the active reptile season where practicable (generally March / April to September / October, depending on prevailing weather). Any potential refuge features, e.g. piles of rubble, heavy logs, brash piles, will be fingertip-searched by an ecologist
Page A89 A90
prior to being carefully disassembled. Any reptiles encountered during the destructive search will be carefully rescued by the supervising ecologist and relocated to suitable nearby habitat.
21.8 Once the destructive search is complete, herpetological exclusion fencing would be installed to prevent reptiles from entering the development footprint during construction activities. Once construction is complete, the exclusion fencing would be removed.
21.9 A number of concerns have been raised by residents and Councillors in relation to the impact of the proposed development on the Slow Worm population. The Council’s Biodiversity Officer has reviewed the submitted application and Ecological information and raises no objection in principle to the proposed development subject to the following planning conditions requiring the following information:
● A detailed landscaping and biodiversity plan to include details of plant species and habitat creation for a range of species (as set out in Section 4 of the submitted Ecological Appraisal); ● A detailed ecological enhancement strategy to include site management, maintenance and resident engagement to ensure the implementation of Slow Worm friendly land management practices; ● Details of boundary treatment which is to be permeable to allow species such as Slow Worms and Hedgehogs to access/egress the site so as to avoid fragmenting populations; ● Details of off-site habitat enhancements for Slow Worms
22.10 Regarding the proposed habitat manipulation and destructive search, the Biodiversity Officer has confirmed that the proposed approach would be acceptable, subject to strict compliance with the recommendations of the submitted Ecological Appraisal. This would include undertaking the proposed habitat manipulation and destructive searches in March prior to the commencement of any clearance or construction works on the site.
22.11 Subject to planning conditions and suitable ecological enhancements and mitigation, it is considered that the proposed development would not have any significant or unacceptable adverse impact on protected species or the biodiversity value of the site.
Page A90 A91
23.0 Flood Risk and Drainage
23.1 Starting with the NPPF, Paragraph 163 states that when determining any planning applications, local planning authorities should ensure that flood risk is not increased elsewhere and that where appropriate, applications should be supported by a site-specific flood-risk assessment. Development should only be allowed in areas at risk of flooding where, in the light of this assessment (and the sequential and exception tests, as applicable) it can be demonstrated that:
● within the site, the most vulnerable development is located in areas of lowest flood risk, unless there are overriding reasons to prefer a different location; ● the development is appropriately flood resistant and resilient; ● it incorporates sustainable drainage systems, unless there is clear evidence that this would be inappropriate; ● any residual risk can be safely managed; and ● safe access and escape routes are included where appropriate, as part of an agreed emergency plan.
23.2 Paragraph 157 of National Planning Policy Framework indicates that the current and future impacts of climate change should be taken into account within the Flood Risk Assessment.
23.3 Policy 5.12 of the London Plan 2016 requires development proposals to comply with the flood risk assessment and management requirements set out in the NPPF and the associated technical guidance on flood risk over the lifetime of the development.
23.4 Policy 5.13 states that developments should utilise sustainable urban drainage systems (SuDS) unless there are practical reasons for not doing so and should aim to achieve greenfield run-off rates, ensuring that surface water run-off is managed as close to its source as possible. Drainage should also be designed and implemented in ways that deliver other policy objectives of the London Plan, including water use efficiency and quality, biodiversity, amenity and recreation.
23.5 Policy DM4 sets requirements for the submission of flood risk assessments in line with the NPPF. These should address all sources of flooding, the future impact of climate change and take into account the findings of the Borough’s Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (“SFRA”), national guidance and good practice guidance. It also requires developments to include Sustainable
Page A91 A92
Urban Drainage Systems (SuDS) to manage and reduce surface water run-off unless it can be demonstrated that such measures are not feasible.
23.6 The application site is not located within Fluvial Flood Zones 2 or 3, but is identified as being at low risk of surface water flooding (1 in 1000 risk).
23.7 In support of the application the applicant has submitted a Drainage Strategy prepared by CTP Consulting Engineers. It is stated that for all new areas of hardstanding and the new roof, surface water would be discharged into the existing public sewer via a new connection. Flows would be restricted and attenuated in underground attenuation tanks. It is stated that the discharge rate would be limited to 5 l/s which would be a betterment of more than 50% for the brownfield site.
23.8 The Council’s Flood Risk Officer, in their Lead Local Flood Authority capacity, has reviewed the submitted Drainage Strategy and has raised concern that no evidence has been provided to suggest that rainwater storage, infiltration techniques or above ground SuDS features have been considered in the development proposal. Infiltration testing should be carried out to determine the suitability of options such as permeable paving. Concerns were also raised that the greenfield runoff rate had not been submitted.
23.9 In response to the Flood Risk Officer’s comments the applicant has submitted a new Drainage Strategy dated November 2020. It is further stated why certain forms of SuDS are not considered to be acceptable on the site, but that measures such as permeable paving could be utilised once the geo-environmental site investigation has been undertaken and the suitability of the ground conditions for infiltration has been assessed. A detailed Management and Maintenance Plan has also been submitted setting out required maintenance works as well as well as frequency.
23.10 The Council’s Flood Risk Officer has been re-consulted on the amended Drainage Assessment and their comments shall be presented to the Planning Committee as Late Material.
24.0 Land Contamination:
24.1 Policy DM1 requires that new development should minimise air, noise and contaminated land impacts in line with industry best practice. Development proposals for contaminated land should include remediation measures.
Page A92 A93
24.2 The Council’s Environmental Health Officer has reviewed the submitted application and advises that a preliminary risk assessment for the potential for land contamination at the site is required by pre-commencement planning condition. Additional planning conditions relating to remediation, verification reports are also recommended.
24.3 The Environment Agency (EA) were consulted and responded that the site appears to have raised land levels which may comprise of infill materials used to raise and level land as part of the sports facility developments to the south. The EA advise relevant geo-environmental assessments should be undertaken to assess any contamination risks to the development or to controlled waters via disturbing fill materials in such a way as to alter flow paths to the river to the south. The design of drainage systems may be impacted by shallow groundwater in the alluvial materials or the underlying clay bedrock. Infiltration SuDs may specifically be difficult or inappropriate in this location. The EA recommends that two planning conditions are added relating to the finding of unexpected contamination and the restriction of surface water infiltration from drainage systems.
24.4 Overall, it is considered that the proposed development would be acceptable in terms of land contamination subject to the planning conditions recommended by the Council’s Environmental Health Officer and the Environment Agency.
25.0 Refuse
25.1 London Plan Policy 5.7 (Waste Capacity) requires the provision of suitable waste and recycling storage facilities in all new developments. Guidance states that refuse stores should be accessible to all residents and should satisfy local requirements for waste collection. As shown on the proposed plans, the scheme contains refuse and recycling storage to the north-east of the proposed building. Full details would be reserved by condition.
26.0 Fire Strategy
26.1 Policy D12 of the London Plan- Intend to Publish Version states “All major development proposals should be submitted with a Fire Statement, which is an independent fire strategy, produced by a third party, suitably qualified assessor.” A fire strategy document has been submitted which sets out the building’s fire safety features and firefighting access facilities.
27.0 Legal Agreements
Page A93 A94
27.1 The applicant has agreed to enter into a legal agreement. As the applicant is the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames and the Local Planning Authority cannot covenant with itself in a Section 106 Agreement. In this instance, a Service Level Agreement between the relevant Directors would be agreed to encompass the necessary obligations and contributions that are required to make the development acceptable in planning terms. The following Heads of Terms have been agreed :
○ A financial contribution to offset any shortfall in CO2 emissions. ○ Travel Plan and monitoring fee ○ Tenure of Affordable Housing
27.2 Subject to the signing of the Service Level Agreement the proposal complies with policies 3.12, 5.1 and 5.2 of the London Plan, (2016) and policies CS10, DM9, DM10 and DM15, DM17 of the LDF Core Strategy, (2012).
28.0 Planning Balance/Conclusion:
28.1 The Council is not able to demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites, as such, unless the application of policies in the NPPF that protect areas or assets of particular importance (footnote 6 of the NPPF) provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed, planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.
28.2 The proposed development would secure the redevelopment of suitable previously developed land for the delivery of dwellings. This carries substantial weight in favour of the development.
28.3 The proposed development would deliver 18 London Affordable Rent (LAR) dwellings. This carries substantial weight in favour of the proposal.
28.4 The proposed development would provide only 1 3 bedroom unit (4% of total units) which would conflict with the requirements of Policy DM13 of the Kingston Core Strategy (2012). This carries moderate weight against the proposal.
28.5 The proposed development would be of a high quality development that would deliver improvements to the quality of public realm and amenity spaces on the site through the delivery of a comprehensive landscaping scheme and play space.
Page A94 A95
28.6 The proposed development would deliver ephemeral economic benefits associated with construction activities and the potential increased spend in local shops, this would carry moderate weight in favour of the proposal.
28.7 The proposed development would result in removal of a number of trees and a reduction in the total greenspace across the site, however, subject to conditions requiring the carrying out of a detailed landscaping strategy and ecological enhancements, Officers consider that the resultant open space would provide a good standard of amenity for future residents.
28.8 Officers acknowledge that there would be some loss of light to some residents, however, a good standard of amenity would nonetheless be retained, it is further noted that separation distances would, on occasions, fall below the guidance of 21m, however, it is not unusual in a dense flatted development for this to happen and separation distances would be similar to those shared between the existing properties in the vicinity. The proposed flats would not have any significant or unacceptable adverse impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties.
28.9 Final consultation responses from the Flood Risk Officer and Neighbourhood Traffic Engineer are awaited and will be presented to the Planning Committee as late material. However, it should be noted that the amended information requested by the above consultees has been submitted, no in principle objections have been raised by those consultees, and as such it is anticipated that the technical issues raised have been satisfactorily addressed. The Neighbourhood Traffic Engineer raised no objection to the scheme as originally submitted and it is not anticipated that the revised scheme would be objectionable in principle.
28.10 In conclusion, Officers consider that the proposed development would make optimal use of an underutilised, previously developed site, for the delivery of much needed affordable homes. It is recognised that existing residents would witness a change in context and living conditions. However, on balance officers conclude that, subject to the conditions / agreement, the proposed development would be in accordance with the development plan and it is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted.
Recommendation:
Approve subject to completion of relevant ‘Service Level agreement between the relevant Directors’, as specified in the legal agreements section, and to delegate to the Head of Development Management any consequent changes to conditions and
Page A95 A96
agreements to be agreed in consultation with the Chair of the Development Control Committee, subject to the following conditions:
1 Time Limit
The development hereby permitted shall be commenced within 3 years from the date of this decision.
Reason: In order to comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990. (As amended)
2 Approved plans and documents
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:
KSS-CR-A-P10-001 Red Line P01 P02 KSS-CR-A-P11-GF Proposed Ground Floor Plan P01 P02 KSS-CR-A-P11-001 Proposed Typical Floor 1F to 4F P01 P02 KSS-CR-A-P11-002 Proposed Roof Plan P01 P02 KSS-CR-A-P12-001 Proposed GA Section P01 P02 KSS-RH-A-P12-001 Proposed GA Section P01 P02 KSS-RH-A-P13-001 Proposed South Elevation P01 P02 KSS-RH-A-P13-002 Proposed North Elevation P01 P02 KSS-RH-A-P13-003 Proposed East Elevation P01 P02 KSS-RH-A-P13-004 Proposed West Elevation P01 P02 KSS-CR-A-P10-002 Proposed Block Plan P01 P02 Fire Strategy Statement ref: EL7109/ks/15bw Arboricultural Method Statement ref: 05440 Cambridge Rd AMS Rev A Tree Protection Plan ref: 05440 Cambridge Rd AMS Rev A Landscaping Plan ref:31345 L05 Rev A Ecology Report ref: 1005906 EcoApp Cambridge Road vf3/CG/JB, and dated 27/11/2020 Daylight and Sunlight Report dated 27th November 2020 Transport Statement v2.0 dated November 2020 Outline Travel Plan v2.0 dated November 2020
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
Page A96 A97
3 Contamination
Prior to the commencement of development an assessment of the risks posed by any contamination, carried out in accordance with British Standard BS10175: Investigation of potentially contaminated sites - Code of Practice and theEnvironment Agency’s Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (CLR 11) (or equivalent BritishStandard and Model Procedures if replaced), shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the LocalPlanning Authority. Should an unacceptable risk be identified, no development shall commence until a report specifying the measures to be taken, including the timescale, to remediate the site to render it suitable for the approved development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To protect human health, controlled waters, and the environment in line with Kingston’s Core Strategy (Adopted April 2012) Policy DM1.
4 The site shall be remediated in accordance with the approved measures and timescale. Prior to the occupation of any part of the development a verification report for all the remediation works shall be submitted to and approved inwriting by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To protect human health, controlled waters, and the environment in line with Kingston’s Core Strategy (Adopted April 2012) Policy DM1.
5 If, during the course of development, any contamination is found which has not been previously identified, work shall be suspended and additional measures for its remediation shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The remediation of the site shall incorporate the approved additional measures and a verification report for all the remediation works shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To protect human health, controlled waters, and the environment in line with Kingston’s Core Strategy (Adopted April 2012) Policy DM1.
Page A97 A98
6 No drainage systems for the infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground is permitted other than with the written consent of the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To protect human health, controlled waters, and the environment in line with Kingston’s Core Strategy (Adopted April 2012) Policy DM1 and paragraph 170 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019).
7 Construction hours
The site and building works required to implement the development shall be only carried out between the hours of 08.00 and 18.00 Mondays to Fridays and between 08.00 and 13.00 on Saturdays and not at all on Bank Holidays and Sundays
Reason:To safeguard the amenity of neighbours in accordance with Policy DM10 of the Kingston Core Strategy (2012).
8 Secure by Design
The development hereby permitted shall incorporate security measures to minimise the risk of crime and to meet the specific security needs of the development in accordance with the principles and objectives of Secured by Design. Details of these measures shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to commencement of the development and shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details prior to occupation.
Reason: In order to achieve the principles and objectives of Secured by Design to improve community safety and crime prevention in accordance with Policy CS 14 of Kingston Core Strategy: Safer Communities, Policy DM 22 Design for Safety and Policy 7.3 Designing out Crime of the London Plan.
Page A98 A99
9 Secure by Design Certification
Prior to occupation a Secured by Design final certificate shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In order to achieve the principles and objectives of Secured by Design to improve community safety and crime prevention in accordance with Policy CS 14 of Kingston Core Strategy: Safer Communities, Policy DM 22 Design for Safety and Policy 7.3 Designing out Crime of the London Plan.
10 Materials
The development shall be completed in accordance with samples and/or manufacturing details where applicable for all visible facing materials including fenestration, balconies which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to above ground works (excluding demolition). The development shall then be built in accordance with these approved samples and completed prior to occupation
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance on completion of the development in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012.
11 Architectural detailing
Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans additional architectural detailing plans at scale 1:10 showing the balconies, windows, doors, overhangs, rainwater goods, ducts, fans and louvres and their associated reveals and their relationship with the walls/fascias shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to above ground works. The development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance on completion of the development in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for
Page A99 A100
New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012.
12 Lighting strategy
Prior to the installation of any external lighting, details of the external lighting, including its compliance with the recommendations of paragraph 4.2.3 of the submitted Ecological Appraisal (November 2020) and the Bat Conservation Trust Guidance Note 08/18 (Bats and Artificial Lighting in the UK) (2018), shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The external lighting shall be installed in accordance with the approved details and thereby retained as such unless a variation is subsequently submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To safeguard the amenities of adjoining residential occupiers and Bats in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012.
13 Landscaping plan
Prior to the beneficial occupation of any unit of accommodation, a detailed landscaping (hard and soft) scheme including details of trees to be planted, wildflowers (the species, size and age to be agreed with the local planning authority in writing), details of the street furniture and play equipment as well as ecological enhancement measures and habitat creation shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented within the first planting season following completion of the development and the tree planting and landscaping shall thereafter be maintained for five years to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and also that the Local Planning Authority shall be satisfied as to the details of the development in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012.
Page A100 A101
14 Cycle parking
Before the first occupation of the building, details of secure cycle parking facilities for the occupants of, and visitors to, the development hereby approved have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These facilities shall be fully implemented and made available for use prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted and shall thereafter be retained for use at all times.
Reason: To ensure the provision of satisfactory cycle storage facilities and in the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy DM8 (Sustainable Transport for New Developments) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012
15 Refuse management
Refuse storage facilities and recycling facilities shall be provided prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted in accordance with details which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such facilities to be permanently retained at the site. The developer and/or their successors in title shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that all refuse and recyclable materials associated with the development shall either be stored within this dedicated store/area as shown on the approved plans, or internally within the building(s) that form part of the application site, and that no refuse or recycling material shall be stored or placed for collection on the public highway or pavement, except on the day of collection.
Reason: To ensure the provision of refuse facilities to the satisfaction of the Council in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012.
Page A101 A102
16 Energy and Sustainability
Prior to above ground works of the development hereby approved, details as to how the approved development has been designed to connect to a future District Heating Network in the surrounding area and provision for the development’s connection shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter permanently retained.
Reason: In the interests of sustainability and energy conservation in accordance with Policies 5.2 (Minimising Carbon Dioxide Emissions) and 5.3 (Sustainable Design & Construction) of the London Plan (July 2011) and Policy DM1 (Sustainable Design and Construction Standards) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012.][EP1]
17 Sustainability and Energy
Prior to occupancy of 50% of the units of the development hereby approved, an assessment carried out by a suitably qualified professional, of the carbon reduction measures implemented within the Development shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of sustainability and energy conservation in accordance with Policies 5.2 (Minimising Carbon Dioxide Emissions) and 5.3 (Sustainable Design & Construction) of the London Plan (March 2016) and Policy DM1 (Sustainable Design and Construction Standards) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012.
18 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the ‘Energy Statement prepared by Hodkinson dated August 2020’ including the installation of photovoltaic solar panels prior to the beneficial occupation of the approved dwellings. The implemented measures shall be maintained thereafter for the lifetime of the development.
Reason: In the interests of sustainability and energy conservation, in accordance with policy 5.2 of the London Plan 2016 and policies CS1, DM3 and DM4 of the LDF Core Strategy 2012.
Page A102 A103
19 Biodiversity (Pre commencement)
The development to which this permission relates shall not be commenced (with the exception of demolition) until a scheme to enhance the nature conservation interest of the site has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The submitted scheme shall incorporate the recommendations made within Section 4.3 (Biodiversity Net Gains) of the approved Ecological Appraisal prepared by Aspect Ecology dated November 2020. The approved scheme shall be implemented in full prior to beneficial occupation of the development.
Reason: To safeguard the biodiversity and nature conservation value of the site, in accordance with policy 7.19 of the London Plan 2016 and policies CS3 and DM6 of the LDF Core Strategy 2012.
20 Permitted Development
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order (England) 2015 (as amended) (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no telecommunications equipment shall be installed on the roof of the development hereby approved without the written approval of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance on completion of the development in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012.
21 Car Parking
The car parking shown on the approved plans shall be provided with a hard-bound, adequately-drained, dust-free surface prior to beneficial occupation of the development to which this permission relates and shall be permanently retained and kept free from obstruction thereafter. It shall not be used for any purposes other than the parking of vehicles for the occupiers of and visitors to the development.
Reason: To ensure the provision of adequate off-street parking in the interests of the safety and operation of the highway network, in
Page A103 A104
accordance with policy 6.13 of the London Plan 2016 and policies CS7 and DM9 of the LDF Core Strategy 2012.
22 Construction Management Plan
No development shall take place (including any works of demolition) until a construction management plan or construction method statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved plan/statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The statement shall provide for:
i) How the proposed development will be built; ii) Hours of working (which shall be limited to 08.00 to 18.00 Mondays to Fridays and between 08.00 to 13.00 on Saturdays and not at all on Bank Holidays and Sundays); iii) The procedure for loading/unloading materials; iv) The route to and away from site for muck away and vehicles with materials; v) The protocol for managing deliveries to one vehicle at a time on sites with restricted access or space; vi) The protocol for managing vehicles that need to wait for access to the site; vii) Whether any reversing manoeuvres are required onto or off the public highway into the site and whether a banksman will be provided; viii) Temporary site access; ix) Signing system for works traffic; x) Whether site access warning signs will be required in adjacent roads; xi) Whether it is anticipated that statutory undertaker connections will be required into the site; xii) The storage of plant, materials and operatives vehicles; xiii) The potential for impacts from dust and emissions during the demolition and/or construction phase upon local air quality and surrounding residents; xiv) Measures for the laying of dust, suppression of noise and abatement of other nuisance arising from development works; xv) The location of all ancillary site buildings; xvi) The means of enclosure of the site, its erection and maintenance; xvii) Wheel washing equipment; xviii) The parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; xix) Meeting the requirements of the Low Emission Zone for Non-Road Mobile Machinery (where relevant plant or vehicles are being used); and
Page A104 A105
xx) The method of recycling and disposing of waste resulting from the demolition and/or construction phases
Deliveries/collections to and from the site shall use a route that is agreed with the highway authority and the agreed route shall be signed accordingly.
Reason: These details are required prior to commencement of development because the relevant works would take place at the beginning of the construction phase in order to safeguard the amenities of the surrounding residential occupiers and in the interests of the safety and operation of the highway network, in accordance with policy 6.13 of the London Plan 2016 and policies CS7 and DM9 of the LDF Core Strategy 2012.
23 Travel Plan
Prior to beneficial occupation of the development to which this permission relates, a detailed travel plan comprising immediate, continuing and long-term measures to promote and encourage alternatives to single-occupancy car use shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved plan shall then be implemented and monitored to the satisfaction of the local planning authority, having regard to the targets contained within it.
Reason: To ensure that appropriate opportunities to promote sustainable transport are taken up, in accordance with policy 6.3 of the London Plan 2016 and policies CS6 and DM8 of the LDF Core Strategy 2012.
Page A105 A106
24 Air Quality - Control of Dust
Prior to the commencement of the development the applicant must submit details of how dust and emissions during construction and demolition are to be controlled. These measures must include the recommendations within table 21 of the submitted Air Quality Assessment. The applicant shall have regard to the GLA SPG on the Control of Dust and Emissions During Construction and Demolition. Such details shall normally include:
● A dust management plan including all recommended measures in Appendix A6 of the Air Quality Assessment ● Site monitoring ● Compliance with the requirements for non-road mobile machinery. See http://nrmm.london/. Note: parts of the borough require the higher standards for opportunity areas. Details are available on the Non Mobile Machinery website.
Reason: To protect local air quality and comply with Policy 7.14 of the London Plan and the GLA SPG Control of Dust and Emissions During Construction.
25 Air Quality
Prior to the commencement of above ground works (excluding demolition), a Damage Cost Assessment using the most up to date damage cost toolkit from Defra and the most recent version of the EFT must be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: To comply with Policy 7.14 of the London Plan and the GLA Sustainable Design and Construction Practice SPG
Page A106 A107
26 Other than demolition, no works shall be carried out until details demonstrating that all of the accommodation units will meet Building Regulation M4(2) standards and 10% of the units will be designed to be built to standards for wheelchair users (M4(3) standards) has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. This will include details of the location of the wheelchair users units, ensuring these are provided across tenures and unit sizes. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: The details would affect subsequent design of other elements of the scheme and must be agreed at the outset and to ensure that an adequate level of accessible units are provided in accordance with Policy 3.8 of the London Plan (2016), Policy DM13 of the RBK Core Strategy (2012) and the Mayor's Housing SPG (2016).
Informatives:
1. In dealing with the application the Council has implemented the requirement in the National Planning Policy Framework to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive way. We have made available detailed advice in the form or our statutory policies in the Core Strategy, Supplementary Planning Documents, Planning Briefs and other informal written guidance, as well as offering a full pre-application advice service, in order to ensure that the applicant has been given every opportunity to submit an application which is likely to be considered favorably.
2 Your attention is drawn to the need to comply with the relevant provisions of the Building Regulations, the Building Acts and other related legislation. These cover such works as - the demolition of existing buildings, the erection of a new building or structure, the extension or alteration to a building, change of use of buildings, installation of services, underpinning works, and fire safety/means of escape works. Notice of intention to demolish existing buildings must be given to the Council's Building Control Service at least 6 weeks before work starts. A completed application form together with detailed plans must be submitted for approval before any building work is commenced.
3 The Party Wall Act 1996 requires a building owner to notify, and obtain formal agreement from, any adjoining owner, where the building owner proposes to:
iv.carry out work to an existing party wall; v.build on the boundary with a neighbouring property;
Page A107 A108
vi.in some circumstances, carry out groundworks within 6 metres of an adjoining building.
Notification and agreements under this Act are the responsibility of the building owner and are quite separate from Building Regulations, or Planning Controls. The Building Control Service will assume that an applicant has obtained any necessary agreements with the adjoining owner, and nothing said or implied by the Council should be taken as removing the necessity for the building owner to comply fully with the Party Wall Act. Further information and advice is to be found in "The Party Walls etc. Act 1996 - Explanatory Booklet".
4 Your attention is drawn to the fact that planning permission does not override property rights, and that if your proposal involves construction on or near the site boundary then you should take appropriate steps to ensure that you have correctly identified the position of the boundary, that you do not build over it, and that any works which affect a neighbours property in any way have the benefit of the appropriate agreement from the landowner. Failure to undertake the above steps may leave you liable to legal action by neighbouring landowners. If you require further information or advice, you should consult a solicitor.
5 The building/extension that you propose may affect a right of light enjoyed by the neighbouring property. This is a private right which can be acquired by prescriptive uses over 20 years; as such it is not affected in any way by the grant of planning permission.
6 When undertaking demolition and/or noisy building work, please be considerate to your neighbours and do not undertake work before 8am or after 6pm Monday to Friday, before 8am or after 1pm on a Saturday or at any time on Sundays or Bank Holidays.
7 You are advised that the Council does have formal powers to control noise and nuisance under The Control of Pollution Act 1974, the Clean Air Acts and other relevant legislation, and that any works undertaken which impact unreasonably upon the surrounding area may be subject to action by the Council's Environmental Health Department.
8 Please note that this planning application has been assessed against current planning legislation only. The applicant (or any subsequent owner or developer) is therefore reminded that the onus of responsibility to ensure the proposed cladding installation meets current fire safety regulations lies fully with them and that they are legally obliged to apply for the relevant Building Regulations.
Page A108 A109
9.The proposed development is located within 15m of Thames Water's underground assets, as such the development could cause the assets to fail if appropriate measures are not taken. Please read our guide ‘working near our assets’ to ensure your workings are in line with the necessary processes you need to follow if you’re considering working above or near our pipes or other structures. https://developers.thameswater.co.uk/Developing-a-large-site/Planning-your-develo pment/Working-near-or-diverting-our-pipes.
11.the Council will require the applicant to undertake a road and footway condition survey before construction begins. This will take the form of a joint inspection with a member of the Highways Operation Team and will involve a photographic record and visual observation of the roads, verges and margins. The team would secure some deposit to ensure that repairing cost is covered should any damage result from the construction associated with this site.
12.A license from the Highways Operation will be required to erect off site direction signs. This same team will issue the hoarding license (if necessary) and seek appropriate deposits.
13. During construction, spoil could be carried from the site onto the public highway. The access into the site should be paved to minimise the carryover of spoil onto adjacent roads. We would also require the applicant to sweep and wash down the adjacent roads to ensure that the public highway is kept clear of debris. This is to ensure a satisfactory road surface for road safety reasons at all times.
14.The applicant should be advised to consider if a parking suspension might be needed to allow access for big delivery construction vehicles involved. To apply for parking suspension (if needed), the applicant should contact the Environment Contact Centre on 020 8547 5002.
15.Any parking that cannot be contained within the site must park considerately and safely, so as not to obstruct sightlines at junctions or site accesses. The applicant should be aware that any such parking will cause unnecessary concern and agitation within the local community; Should make full use of the site accesses to maximise the availability of off street parking
Page A109 A110
16.Reasonable efforts have been made to check that the plans submitted for the purposes of this planning application are consistent from one to the next, and that the development hereby approved can be implemented in accordance with all of the plans submitted. Should it transpire that this is not possible and that your plans are flawed, please be clear that it may be impossible to implement this permission, and that any development undertaken which relies on this permission may be unauthorised and subject to enforcement action if expedient.
17. The piling method statement should detail the type of piling to be undertaken, why this method has been selected, measures to be taken to minimise noise and vibration and a plan showing where the piles are to be installed. There are a number of different piling methods suitable for different circumstances. Guidance is contained in BS5228 Noise control on Construction and Open sites - Part 4: Code of Practice for noise and vibration control applicable to piling operations. The contractor is required to take the best practicable means to minimise noise and vibration and the Council positively encourages the use of hydraulic, auger and diaphragm wall piling methods. Where complaints of noise and vibration are received it is expected that the contractor will undertake noise and vibration monitoring, with data reported back to the Environmental Health Service.
18. Written schemes of investigation will need to be prepared and implemented by a suitably qualified professionally accredited archaeological practice in accordance with Historic England’s Guidelines for Archaeological Projects in Greater London. This condition is exempt from deemed discharge under schedule 6 of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.
Page A110