Agenda
For enquiries on this agenda, please contact: Marian Morrison 020 8547 4623 email:[email protected]
Published on 29 August 2014
Kingston Town Neighbourhood Committee (including planning items)
Date: Wednesday 10 September 2014
Time: 7:30 pm
Place: Guildhall, Kingston upon Thames
Members of the Committee
Canbury Ward Councillor Geoff Austin Councillor Andrea Craig Councillor David Glasspool
Grove Ward Councillor Stephen Brister Councillor Phil Doyle Councillor Chrissie Hitchcock
Norbiton Ward Councillor Bill Brisbane Councillor Linsey Cottington Councillor Sheila Griffin
Tudor Ward Councillor Frank Thompson
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.
2
3
AGENDA
Questions and public participation
• a 30 minute question and answer session at the start of the meeting –advance notice of questions is encouraged.
• contributions during the debate on items at the discretion of the Chair. However this is with the exception of any planning applications, enforcement of TPOs. Please see guidance notes on speaking on these items at the end of the agenda.
1. Apologies for Absence
2. Declarations of Interest
Members are invited to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests and any other personal interests relevant to items on this agenda.
3. Minutes
To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 18 June 2014
4. Petitions
To receive any petitions from residents.
5. Neighbourhood Manager's Report
The Neighbourhood Manager will report on current Kingston Town Neighbourhood issues and topics.
6. Councillor Representation on Kingston First
To agree that Councillors Hugh Scantlebury and Chrissie Hitchcock are appointed as representatives on Kingston First (Board)
Planning Consultation (13/13017/FUL & 13/13018/LBC): 22-30 Appendix A 7. (Gala Bingo Hall) Richmond Road, Kingston Upon Thames, Surrey, KT2 5ED
To make comments on the proposal
8. Planning Applications Appendix B
To determine the Planning Applications 4
9. Enforcement: 17 Bearfield Road, Kingston, KT2 5ET Appendix C
To determine whether or not Enforcement Action should be taken
10. Enforcement: 38 Aragon Road, Kingston, KT2 5QE Appendix D
To determine whether or not Enforcement Action should be taken
11. Enforcement: 9 Dudley Road, Kingston, KT1 2UN Appendix E
To determine whether or not Enforcement Action should be taken
12. Enforcement: Unit 10, Hampden Road, Kingston, KT1 3LG Appendix F
To determine whether or not Enforcement Action should be taken
13. Eagle Wharf Events Management Plan Consultation Results Appendix G
To consider the consultation results and the way forward
Application for a Street Cafe Licence - L'Artigiano, Crown Appendix H 14. Arcade
To determine whether or not to grant the licence
15. Local Improvement Plan 2015/16 Appendix I
To make comments and endorse proposals
16. Acre Road - introduction of new Zebra Crossing Appendix J
To determine whether or not to implement the proposal
17. Penrhyn Road - introduction of new Pelican Crossing Appendix K
To determine whether or not to implement the proposal
18. Neighbourhood Grants Appendix L
To determine whether or not to approve the grant applications
19. 2014/15 Budget Monitoring Update Appendix M
To consider the update and make any decisions on the budget
20. INFORMATION ITEMS Appendix N
5
• Work Programme
21. URGENT ITEMS AUTHORISED BY THE CHAIR
Dates of Future Meetings
Meetings are held at the Guildhall, High Street, Kingston upon Thames and start at 7.30pm unless otherwise stated.
Neighbourhood Committee – Planning Sub-Committee meeting marked # could include planning applications Wednesday 22 October 2014 Wednesday 5 November 2014 Wednesday 10 December 2014 Wednesday 4 February 2015 Wednesday 14 January 2015 Wednesday 18 March 2015 Wednesday 4 March 2015 Wednesday 15 April 2015
6
Welcome to this meeting
The following information explains the way some things are done at the meeting and some of the procedures.
Information about the Kingston Town Neighbourhood Committee
The Kingston Town Neighbourhood Committee is made up of your local elected Councillors and is responsible for making decisions about local services, which can be tailored to the local area
Do you want to ask a question?
There is a Question Time of up to 30 minutes from 7.30pm – 8pm. Questions may be submitted in writing before the meeting or handed in at the start of the meeting on the green forms provided. (There are some green slips on the chairs and there are more copies.) Please fill in the relevant part and hand this in to the Committee Secretary at the top table. For enquiries please contact Marian Morrison 020 8547 4623, email:[email protected].
Where a full reply cannot be given at the meeting, a written reply will be sent to the questioner, members of the Committee and the local press. The Chair may disallow any question which, in his/her opinion, is scurrilous, capricious, irrelevant or otherwise objectionable.
Running order
Are you here for a particular item? Items may be taken in a different order depending on the interests of the members of the public present at the meeting. Please fill out a green form at the start of the meeting and hand this to the Committee Secretary if you would like to request that a particular item is heard earlier in the meeting.
Taking part in the meeting
During the course of the meeting, the Chair, at his/her discretion, may allow contributions, including questions on items listed on the agenda. To attract the Chair’s attention, please raise your hand.
Speaking at meetings
Speaking at a meeting can be a daunting prospect and every effort is made to make this as easy as possible. Speech friendly arrangements will take account of people who may have a speech impairment, e.g. they may have a stammer. If you have any individual requirements or feel that standing or addressing the meeting may present a difficulty, please let us know beforehand. Arrangements will be made to help you as far as reasonably possible.
Emergency evacuation arrangements
If the fire alarm sounds, please leave the building by the nearest exit. If you require assistance, please remain seated and an Officer will assist you from the building.
7
More meeting information
Accessibility
• All meetings have access for people who may have mobility difficulties. If there are stairs, a lift or stairlift is available. Disabled parking spaces are available on site. • Toilet facilities will be easily accessible from the meeting room. • For people who have hearing impairments, there is an induction loop (depending on the building, this may only be available in the first 2 or 3 rows). • A large print copy of the agenda can be requested in advance.
Recording of the meeting
This meeting will be recorded and the recording will be available on the web site (www.kingston.gov.uk) with the agenda and minutes.
Filming
Residents and journalists/media wishing to film meetings are permitted to do so but are asked to give advance notice of this and respect any concerns expressed by people on being filmed.
Phrases used at meetings
Like all organisations, the Council has its own ‘jargon’. On the agenda and during debates you will see/hear the following phrases:
• Interests - Councillors must say if they have an interest in any of the items on the agenda. Interests may be personal or pecuniary. Depending on the interests declared, it might be necessary for the Councillor to leave the meeting. The detail on interests is in Part 5A of the Constitution - Members’ Code of Conduct.
• Call In - Most of the decisions made at the Committee, except decisions on planning applications, planning enforcement, tree preservation orders and any licensing applications, can be called in for review by 100 people who live, work or study in the Borough. The call in period is 5 days after the minutes have been published (the deadline for the call in of any of these decisions will be set out in the Minutes). Decisions are not, therefore, acted upon until it is clear that they are not going to be called in.
• The Call In means the decision will be reviewed by the Scrutiny Panel. The Panel cannot change the original decision, it may decide that no further action is necessary, in which case the decision will be implemented or will refer the issue back to the Neighbourhood Committee with its views and a request that the decision is reconsidered taking account of these views.
Minutes
The minutes briefly summarise the item and record the decision. They do not record who said what during the debate.
8
Speaking on Planning Applications, Enforcement, or TPOs
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.
(For other items on the agenda, including planning applications on which the Neighbourhood is being consulted before the application is considered by the Development Control Committee, residents may ask questions and give their views at the discretion of the Chair.)
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. To register please contact: Marian Morrison 020 8547 4623, email:[email protected] Registration deadline : Monday 8 September 2014 at 10.00am
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 is 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 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 to Objector(s) and Applicant
5. Objector(s) (5 minutes) Land/property owner (5 minutes) The Council as applicant and/or supporters of Applicant (5 minutes) 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
Kingston Town Neighbourhood Committee 10 September 2014 Planning Consultation (13/13017/FUL & 13/13018/LBC): 22-30 (Gala Bingo Hall) Richmond Road, Kingston Upon Thames, Surrey, KT2 5ED Report by the Head of Planning & Transport
Purpose: 1. This report seeks the Committee’s views on full planning application 13/13017/FUL for the “Alterations, demolition & rebuilding of eastern annex to provide 7 storey extension, erection of 3 additional floors for 14 flats, use for non-residential institution/ assembly/ leisure use (D1/D2), bar/ restaurant (A3/A4), children's play centre (D1), offices (B1), dance studio (D2),15 serviced apartments, basement car park. Erection of single storey addition to school.” 2. The application is still under consideration and although the period set aside for consultation responses has expired, some may still be received. Further information will be circulated to the Committee upon the receipt of any further consultation responses. The proposal raises a number of considerations which are set out below in the main body of the report. Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Committee express its views on the application so that the Development Control Committee can consider them when it determines this planning application.
A Register No : 13/13017/FUL
Address : 22-30 (GALA BINGO HALL) RICHMOND ROAD, KINGSTON UPON THAMES, SURREY, KT2 5ED A2
(c) Crown Copyright. All right reserved. Royal Borough of Kingston 2007. Licence number 100019285. [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.] A3
Ward : Canbury Description of Proposal : Alterations, demolition & rebuilding of eastern annex to provide 7 storey extension, erection of 3 additional floors for 14 flats, use for non-residential institution/ assembly/ leisure use (D1/D2), bar/ restaurant (A3/A4), children's play centre (D1), offices (B1), dance studio (D2),15 serviced apartments, basement car park. Erection of single storey addition to school. Plan Type : Full Application Expiry Date : 20/05/2014
Applicant's Plan Nos :
0622_101_LR Received 26/11/2013 0622_102_LR Received 26/11/2013 12-097D_300P1 Received 26/11/2013 12-097R_001 Rev B 2 (6) Received 26/11/2013 Structural Report 2505-PL-001-SITE LOCATION Received 26/11/2013 PLAN 2505-PL-002-BLOCK PLAN AS Received 26/11/2013 EXISTING 2505-PL-010 - BLOCK PLAN Received 26/11/2013 AS PROPOSED 2505-PL-100-GROUND FLOOR Received 26/11/2013 PLAN AS EXISTING 2505-PL-101-1ST FLOOR Received 26/11/2013 PLAN AS EXISTING 2505-PL-102-2ND FLOOR Received 26/11/2013 PLAN AS EXISTING 2505-PL-103-3RD FLOOR Received 26/11/2013 PLAN AS EXISTING 2505-PL-104-4TH FLOOR Received 26/11/2013 PLAN AS EXISTING 2505-PL-105-ROOF PLAN AS Received 26/11/2013 EXISTING 2505-PL-200- Received 26/11/2013 NORTHELEVATION AS EXISTING 2505-PL-201-EAST Received 26/11/2013 ELEVATION AS EXISTING 2505-PL-202-EAST Received 26/11/2013 ELEVATION CONTINUED A4
2505-PL-203-SOUTH Received 26/11/2013 ELEVATION AS EXISTING 2505-PL-204-WEST Received 26/11/2013 ELEVATION AS EXISTING 2505-PL-205-SECTION AA AS Received 26/11/2013 EXISTING 2505-PL-206 SECTION BB AS Received 26/11/2013 EXISTING 2505-PL407 - 6TH FLOOR AS Received 26/11/2013 PROPOSED 2505-PL408 - ROOF PLAN AS Received 26/11/2013 PROPOSED 2505-PL500 - SECTION AA AS Received 03/02/2014 PROPOSED 2505-PL501 - SECTION BB AS Received 26/11/2013 PROPOSED 2505-PL502 - SECTION Received 26/11/2013 DETAILS OF REPAIRS TO HISTORIC ELEMENTS 2505-PL600 - NORTH and Received 26/11/2013 EAST ELEVATIONS AS PROPOSED 2505-PL601 - SOUTH and Received 26/11/2013 WEST ELEVATIONS AS PROPOSED 2505-PL602 - WEST Received 26/11/2013 ELEVATION DETAIL and RELATED MATERIALS 2505_PL_700 Detail of new Received 03/02/2014 structure penetrating existing ceiling 2505_PL_701 Detail showing Received 03/02/2014 new mail junction with exsting ceiling 2505_PL_702 Detail showing Received 03/02/2014 new mail junction to proscenium arch 2505_PL_704 Proposed Received 03/02/2014 junctionwith new wall and rear of balcony 2505_PL_705 Detail of junction Received 03/02/2014 between horizontal cinema wall 2505_PL_706 section through Received 03/02/2014 new window A5
4146 - 13.11.22 - Kingston Gala Received 26/11/2013 Energy Statement - Ver 4 4146 13.11.20 Kingston Gala Received 26/11/2013 Bespoke BREEAM Pre- Assessment - Ver 3 4146 13.11.20 Kingston Gala Received 26/11/2013 CfSH Pre-Assessment - Ver 3 4146 13.11.20 Kingston Gala Received 26/11/2013 Offices BREEAM Pre- Assessment - Ver 3 4146 13.11.20 Kingston Gala Received 26/11/2013 Part L Compliance Report - Ver 2 4146 13.11.20 Kingston Gala Received 26/11/2013 Restaurant BREEAM Pre- Assessment - Ver 3 4146 13.11.22 Kingston Gala Received 26/11/2013 Sustainability Statement - Ver 4 A2510 PL-011 [Site Location Received 12/08/2014 Plan] A2510 PL-106 [Existing 3rd Received 12/08/2014 Floor Mezzanine Plan] A2510 PL-310 [Ground Floor Received 12/08/2014 Plan as Existing Demolitions] A2510 PL-311 [1st Floor Plan as Received 12/08/2014 Existing Demolitions] A2510 PL-312 [2nd Floor Plan Received 12/08/2014 as Existing Demolitions] A2510 PL-313 [3rd Floor Plan Received 12/08/2014 as Existing Demolitions] A2510 PL-314 [3rd Floor Received 12/08/2014 Mezzanine Plan as Existing Demolitions] A2510 PL-316 [Roof Plan as Received 12/08/2014 Existing Demolitions] A2510 PL-410 [Basement Plan Received 12/08/2014 as Proposed] A2510 PL-411 [Ground Floor Received 12/08/2014 Plan as Proposed] A2510 PL-412 [1st Floor Plan as Received 12/08/2014 Proposed] A2510 PL-413 [2nd Floor Plan Received 12/08/2014 as Proposed] A2510 PL-414 [3rd Floor Plan Received 12/08/2014 A6
as Proposed] A2510 PL-415 [4th Floor Plan Received 12/08/2014 as Proposed] A2510 PL-416 [5th Floor Plan Received 12/08/2014 as Proposed]
Basic Information
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012
Development Plan: London Plan July 2011 LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012
Policies LONDON PLAN JULY 2012 LP 3.5 Quality and design of housing development LP 3.8 Housing choice LP 4.5 London’s visitor infrastructure LP 6.1 Strategic approach LP 6.9 Cycling LP 7.4 Local character LP 7.6 Architecture LP 7.8 Heritage assets and archaeology LP 7.9 Heritage-led regeneration LDF CORE STRATEGY CORE POLICIES CS 01 Climate Change Mitigation CS 05 Reducing the Need to Travel CS 06 Sustainable Travel CS 07 Managing Vehicle Use CS 08 Character, Heritage and Design CS 10 Housing Delivery LDF CORE STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT DM01 Sustainable Design and Construction Standards DM08 Sustainable Transport for new Development DM10 Design Requirements for New Developments DM11 Design Approach DM12 Development in Conservation Areas and Affecting Heritage Assets DM13 Housing Quality and Mix DM18 New Employment Uses
Previous Relevant History
9414 Use as cinema and indoor Permit 07/04/1972 games hall 19856 Change of use of circle area Permit 25/07/1978 from cinema to bingo and social A7
club 2011: Enforcement : In 2011 the previous owner of the site committed an offence by undertaking works to the Listed Building without consent. This amounted to the demolition of the internal ground floor throughout, which was levelled to rubble. The previous owner received a substantial fine as well as being ordered to pay all of RBKs costs in full. This verdict represented the conclusion of the Council’s actions regarding the Offence, but not the conclusion of its enforcement case which remains open as the building has yet to be restored, either to its pre- Offence condition or to an alternative condition benefiting from Listed Building Consent. The current owners had agreed an option to purchase the site at the time the previous owner was convicted. Officers made it clear to the current owners that they were purchasing a property with (and therefore the responsibility for) a significant breach of planning control which needed to be fully addressed. The Council has the option at any time to serve a Listed Building Enforcement Notice to specify repairs that must be undertaken. Compliance would be a significant and costly undertaking for the owner and it would be difficult for RBK to secure compliance while the owner can show they are making genuine attempts to address the condition of the building through redevelopment. Enforcement action has therefore been placed on hold pending the outcome of the owner’s redevelopment plans. The Council has been asked to assess whether the building is deteriorating in the interim period, and has undertaken several surveys with Building Control Inspectors as a result. There has been no evidence that the building is deteriorating significantly, though the owner has been advised to weather-proof the property.
Consultations
1. Site and Press notice displayed. 970 neighbours consulted. 2. The Cinema Theatres Association : Object strongly to the proposals to subdivide the main auditorium, but have no concerns with apartments and offices above and behind the cinema. There is clearly a need for a large auditorium in Kingston. Onus is on applicant to prove there are no other viable uses that do not lead to harmful interventions as proposed. 3. The Theatres Trust : objects to the application in principle because the excessive and insensitive internal subdivision and reuse of the existing building will damage the architectural integrity and significance of the cinema. No objection to the concept of office and residential development being located behind and above the former cinema building. Welcome the proposed restoration and repair of the damage caused to the proscenium arch and plaster detail and the effort to find uses that retain public access to the building, including the new cinemas. The building will be significantly altered and permanently damaged by the subdivision of the auditorium for the new uses and this will never be reversed. The new cinemas will be in located in separate boxes and the design does not incorporate the decorative roof. No details provided regarding the location of toilet facilities, projection booths or cinema entrances. The proscenium arch will be the bar/ restaurant's main feature, but due the subdivision it will not be possible to appreciate the full scale of the Art Deco features. 4. Twentieth Century Society : Object: The NPPF emphasises the importance A8
of conserving listed buildings. Subdividing the historic double height space of this 1930s building both horizontally and vertically will significantly harm the architectural significance of this building. The scheme will cause damage to the special interest of this building and is irreversible. In addition important architectural details such as the original decorative plasterwork will no longer be visible, which increases the overall harmful impact of the proposed subdivision. We do not believe that this scheme pays due regard to the special interest of this grade II listed building as required by NPPF policy. In terms of viability, we remain unconvinced that the proposal presented is the only solution for re-using and converting this listed building. Overall we consider the cost and damage to the architectural and historical significance of this building to be simply too high. We urge the local planning authority to refuse listed building consent and planning permission. 5. English Heritage (Historic Buildings): No response received. 6. English Heritage (Archaeology) : The development could have some impact on archaeological remains. Conditions are required to ensure further information is provided to confirm whether archaeological remains exist on site or whether they have been truncated by quarrying or the building of the cinema building and ensure that the post investigation assessment has been carried out and that building recording takes place. 7. Environment Agency ; No objection. Flood risk assessment should consider flood risk from Hogsmill and make it resilient to flooding from this source. A condition is recommended regarding a flood evacuation plan. Sustainable Drainage Systems should be utilised and the applicant should demonstrate how the principles of SuDS could be applied to the development. 8. Thames Water : Recommend conditions/ informatives are attached to any permission granted regarding surface water drainage, impact piling, installation of fat traps and minimum water pressure. 9. Designing Out Crime Officer : Entry to residential units and serviced apartments should have their own separate entrances. A zoned fob controlled system is recommended. Control access to cycle parking and basement car park. CCTV should be fitted. Secured By Design principles should be incorporated. 10. Housing : Developments of 10 units or more require 50% affordable housing. None is proposed and the applicant has sought to justify this through a financial appraisal. This should be independently assessed. The applicant should also assess the viability of providing residential housing in place of serviced apartments and consider providing more units/ a higher proportion of 3 bedroom units. Two cores should be provided to reduce the number of flats served by each core to no more than 8 to accord with the Mayor of London's Housing SPG. The proposed serviced apartments are small when compared to the recommended space standards for residential units. 11. Environmental Health : No objection. Acoustic report considers impact on noise to residential occupiers. Measures to protect noise environment of proposed residential properties should be secured by condition, in particular to ensure no noise disturbance from cinema, dance hall, restaurant/ bar and from traffic noise. Conditions required regarding plant noise and hours of operation of commercial uses and deliveries/ servicing. Conditions required regarding proposed lighting and contamination. Construction to be in accordance with submitted Energy Statement to A9
reduce impact on air quality in Air Quality Management Area. Condition required to reduce release of dust, etc.. 12. Carbon Reduction and Sustainability Officer : 25.75% CO2 emissions reduction does not meet the London Plan's 40% target, but given that this is a listed building, which limits what can be achieved this is acceptable and will be partly achieved through the installation of air source heatpumps, solar PV panels and a CHP system. Need to show where solar PVs are proposed to ensure visual acceptability and maximisation of emissions reduction target. Code Level 4 for the residential units and BREEAM Excellent for the cinema, children's play area, office space and restaurant are proposed, which although less than Code Level 5 and BREEAM Outstanding is considered acceptable given the site constraints. Conditions are required to secure this. There are no heat networks for the proposed development to connect to. 13. Kingston Police Station Licensing : To reduce impact on residential amenities of surrounding occupiers suggest no use of commercial premises between midnight and 6am, except for cinema which could operate between 1am and 6am. 14. Network Rail : No comments. 15. Kingston Upon Thames Society : Support as the developer intends to reinstate as far as possible, the art deco interior and look forward to the exterior, which is in an appalling condition, being restored to its former glory. Understand that the provision of flats is necessary to pay for the restoration work and are satisfied that the overall appearance will not be prejudiced. 16. Cinema Manager at Olympic Studios Barnes : Wasted opportunity. Support comments of the Cinema Theatres Association. 17. Syrox Emedia : part of proposals impact on our useable space and parking/ access areas. Noise/disturbance from construction to our offices. 18. Burrell Foley Fischer : Comments on the proposed 3 screen cinema: The proposal to subdivide the balcony to create 3 screens would be harmful to the architectural and historical significance of the former cinema auditorium. It would not result in a cinema that would meet the needs of a modern cinema operator and the expectations of a modern cinema going audience with regard to screen size and viewing experience. The restricted cinema entrance proposed on Richmond Road and poor presence of the cinema lobby, which provides limited intervisibility with the street, would be to the detriment of attracting cinema audiences. 19. Petition: 925 signatures : Object to partial demolition/ internal subdivision until an impartial assessor has produced a report on the viability of the building once restored, including consideration of case studies of comparable buildings operating elsewhere. 20. 81 objections : 1) Division of wonderful and rare auditorium unacceptable. Detrimental impact of supporting columns for support of the residential accommodation on the listed auditorium. Auditorium of this size would be viable in Kingston and is needed as a performing arts, conference venue, community arts centre or music venue. No independent viability study done to assess its loss. 2) Not good location for this mix of uses which could be provided in other locations within the town centre. Unconvinced that cinema, restaurants, offices are viable in this location given existence of these uses close by. Lack of toilet provision, sales space or means of escape for A10
cinema. Leisure businesses that the town centre doesn't have would be more useful. No community benefit proposed 3) External changes would result in unacceptable mass and is out of character with the existing Listed Building and would have a detrimental impact on the Kingston skyline. 4) Underground car park could cause subsidence to a listed building and could be flooded 5) Lack of affordable housing 6) Noise/ congestion impact on residential areas. 7) Narrow streets would provide poor pedestrian access. 8) Increase in traffic for one way system, increased visitor parking to surrounding streets and lack of parking for proposal. 9) No assessment of bats. 10) Lack of Section 106 contributions. 11) Green space should be added. 12) Some accept external changes and welcome addition to Educare school. Some concern that site could change use to dancing/drinking/nightclub without requiring a further change of use. If any changes proposed from current proposal, re-consultation should take place with local residents and those who have expressed an interest in this application. 21. 2 Comments : Suggestion of sports centre with a spa/pool on top or anything that would make it into a nice building. Site should be used to support local artists, facilities for which are currently limited in Kingston 22. 12 letters of support : 1) Brings derelict building into use 2) Positive impact on the quality of public realm in this part of North Kingston 3) An arts cinema would be an asset to the area 4) No demand for alternative suggestion of major cinema hall 5) Unlikely to cause traffic or noise disturbance in the immediate neighbourhood 6) This proposal reflects views of local residents 7) Proposal should not include a nightclub 23. Reconsultation undertaken on amendments: 24. Kingston Police Station Licensing : To reduce impact on residential amenities of surrounding occupiers suggest no use of commercial premises between midnight and 6am. 25. Ecology Officer : Credits have been awarded in the BREAAM assessment for the Ecology section, yet I can see no Ecology Report in the documents list. I therefore cannot agree that the ecology of the site has been investigated and that these credits have been correctly awarded until I am able to see the report. In any even I see that not all the available credits have been awarded and that more could be done for this section. 26. Carbon Reduction and Sustainability Officer : The roof plans indicate that there could be greater scope for Solar PV panels to target further emissions reduction. Therefore it would be helpful to understand how the sizing of the proposed Solar PV array was decided upon and if there is scope for greater capacity to increase the emissions reduction rate. 27. Thames Water : Conditions recommended regarding sewers, surface water drainage, impact piling, provision of a fat trap and groundwater discharge. No objection regarding water infrastructure capacity. Informative to be added water pressure. A11
Site and Surroundings
28. Site area is 2014sqm. The maximum dimensions of the site are 72m width by maximum 48m depth. The Richmond Road frontage is 51m and the Canbury Park Road frontage is 19m. The site contains a Grade II listed building. It was originally built as a cinema and was used as a bingo hall from the 1970s to 2010. The building has been largely vacant since 2010, although the dance studio currently occupies the first floor level on the southern side of the building. 29. The site is located within, but on the edge of, Kingston Town Centre. The Richmond Road frontage is designated as an "other shopping frontage". The site is located within flood zone 2 (medium probability) with the south- western corner falling within flood zone 3 (high probability). The site is located in an area of archaeological significance. The site is within the K+20 Action Area Plan area. The site is within a Key View from the Thatched house Lodge in Richmond Park to All Saints Church. The site is within an area of excellent public transport linkages (PTAL rating of 6).
30. The building fronts Richmond Road to its west, Cowleaze Road to its north and Canbury Park Road to its south. Immediately to the north of the site, attached to the building, is a 5/ 6 storey building including a ground floor estate agents and residential flats above. To the north of Cowleaze Road is a 3/ 4 storey building including a retail shop at ground floor with residential flats above. To the east of this site adjacent to Cowleaze Road is a two storey plus roof school site (Educare). To the south-east of the site attached to the buildings eastern elevation is a 5-6 storey building used as offices. To the east of this site adjacent to Canbury Park Road and Elm Crescent is the two to three storey Canbury Business Park including the three storey Mitre House which is used as offices and fronts Canbury Park Road. To the south of the application site are two storey Victorian buildings including a pub, commercial units and a terrace of residential properties. To the west of the site is a terrace of two storey buildings, all with commercial uses at ground floor, Sopwith way, a three lane carriageway which is part of the Kingston gyratory and Regents Court, which is a four storey residential block with ground floor commercial unit fronting Richmond Road. To the south of this is Kingston train station.
Proposal
31. Alterations, demolition & rebuilding of eastern annex to provide 7 storey extension for 15 serviced apartments (C1 Hotel use) and 494sqm of offices (B1 use). Erection of 3 additional floors for 14 flats (1 No. 1 bedroom flat, 10 No. 2 bedroom flats, 2 No. 3 bedroom flats and 1 No. 6 bedroom flat). All include terraces. Materials include white render, glass rainscreen, aluminium framed sliding doors and zinc clad balcony fascia and canopy over doors. Elevational alterations to southern elevation to include new large square window and “REGAL” lettering above. Use of main 989sqm auditorium for non-residential institution/ assembly/ leisure uses (D1/D2), which include: D1 uses: a place of worship, law court, non- residential education and training centre, a museum, library, art gallery/ A12
exhibition space or church hall; D2 uses: Cinema, music, concert hall, bingo and dance hall. Use of proscenium arch and front stalls plus proposed mezzanine levels on ground to second floor as 682sqm bar/ restaurant(A3/A4), use of part of ground floor as 499sqm children's play centre (D1 use), continued use of part of second floor as 312sqm dance studio(D2), as existing. Provision of ramp to access proposed basement car park containing 18 parking spaces, plant, refuse and recycling areas and storage for 12 bicycles. Erection of single storey brick-built addition to school in association with outside play area. The following amendments have been received: 32.
1) Amendment to basement site plan; 2) 3rd floor mezzanine added for existing and proposed building; 3) Incorporation of revised structural design which removes supporting columns from auditorium area; 4) Reconfiguration of proposed restaurant mezzanine levels to open up views of the space and heritage features; 5) change of one floor of office space to additional floor of serviced apartments and change to layout of serviced apartments to provide total of 15; 6) Retention of decorative curved rear wall of auditorium; 7) Removal of proposed cinema use and associated boxes and retention of auditorium balcony area as a single space which could be used for a range of D1/D2 ( non-residential institution/ assembly and leisure uses) to be accessed from retained historic cinema entrance lobby; 8) Reconfiguration of children’s play space area/ entrance; 9) Changes to vertical circulation on all floors 10) Change to proposed residential entrance lobby; 11) Introduction of lightwell adjacent to 32 Richmond Road.
Assessment
The main considerations material to the determination of this application are:
• Principle of Proposed Development • Impact on Character of Listed Building and Area • Impact on Neighbour’s Residential Amenity • Highways and Parking • Trees • Legal Agreements • Sustainability • Other Material Considerations A13
Principle of Proposed Development
33. In terms of the loss of the existing use and the proposed range of uses, these will be addressed in the following paragraphs. The issue of the extension, alterations and refurbishment of the listed building is a fundamental issue for this application and will be considered in the next section regarding the impact on the listed building and character of the area. 34. K+20 AAP Character Area 10 states that one of its objectives is the “Retention and enhancement of the listed Gala Bingo Hall for leisure/ entertainment use”. Policy K6 of the K+20 AAP seeks to enhance or diversify the range of arts, culture, entertainment, leisure and recreational activities. The previous use as a bingo hall and current use as a dance studio are community facilities. Policy DM24 states that the Council will resist the net loss of community facilities unless there is evidence to suggest the facility is no longer needed; where appropriate, it has been vacant and marketed for a community use without success, or; it can be re-provided elsewhere or in a different way. The amount of existing floorspace, all of which is vacant D2 use class floorspace, is 4230sqm. The proposed community floorspace to replace this is a 312sqm dance hall, 499qm kids play area, 1370 unspecified D1/D2 use and 69sqm school classroom making a total of 2250sqm. Although much of the existing community floorspace has been unused for some time, this represents a loss of potential community floorspace of 1980sqm. Within the building are also proposed 682sqm of restaurant space, 521sqm of offices and 631 sqm of serviced apartments making a total of 1834sqm in other non- residential uses. The applicant has advised that the property has been previously marketed and the main interest was from religious groups and a nightclub operator. There was no significant interest from any other leisure operators for alternative leisure uses. The previous purchaser bought this site for use as a late night venue, although it was never used as such. An independent viability assessment has been undertaken and one of its conclusions is that the reinstatement of the auditorium would not be viable as one use. 35. Education facilities are community facilities. Policy CS16 supports the provision of new facilities of appropriate size and scale in accessible locations, such as Kingston Town Centre. The 69sqm additional classroom would provide additional school facilities for the private school currently operating on this site. 36. Policy DM22 states that regarding design for safety, the Council will assess development proposals based on b) size of venue, opening hours, location of premises and proposed crime prevention measures. The Bingo Hall use falls within use class D2, which includes cinemas, music and concert halls, bingo and dance halls (but not night clubs), swimming baths, skating rinks, gymnasiums or area for indoor or outdoor sports and recreations (except for motor sports, or where firearms are used). The building could, subject to the practicalities of such a use in the building, be used for any of those uses without planning permission. The proposal reduces the maximum size that one use could occupy in the venue whilst providing a mix of town centre A14
uses. The Designing Out Crime Officer has commented as follows: Entry to residential units and serviced apartments should have their own separate entrances. A zoned fob controlled system is recommended. Access to cycle parking and basement car park should be controlled. CCTV should be fitted. Secured By Design principles should be incorporated. 37. Policy CS11 states that where appropriate, the Council will support the: d) provision of flexible business space to meet the diverse needs of start up, micro, small and medium sized enterprises. Policy DM18 states that the Council will consider applications for new employment development (of an appropriate scale) in designated employment locations favourably. Kingston Town Centre is a designated employment location. 494sqm of serviced office space is proposed for small start up businesses. 38. Policy CS11 states that with its partners, the Council will promote tourism including appropriate infrastructure. Paragraph 6.120 states that in accordance with the Borough’s Cultural Strategy and regional guidance, the Council will promote tourism through a range of measures, including new and improved visitor accommodation and attractions, especially in Kingston Town Centre and at Chessington World of Adventures, which will help to maximize the economic, social and educational benefits of tourism and help diversify the local economy. Policy K6 of the K+20 AAP states that hotel proposals will be considered in Kingston Town Centre on their merits against relevant policies. 15 serviced apartments ranging in size from 30sqm to 63 sqm are proposed as part of the development and would provide self- catering hotel accommodation within the C1 (Hotel) Use Class. 39. Policy CS10 seeks to take advantage of opportunities to deliver new housing with the current target to achieve 375 new units a year. The site is located in a mixed use/residential area within Kingston Town Centre, although close to the edge of the town centre. Policy K7 of the K+20 AAP states that provision is made for around 1000 new homes to be built in the town centre over the period 2006-2020 as part of mixed use development to meet a range of housing needs, including private and affordable housing with a range of flat sizes. 40. Policy CS10 seeks to maximise the delivery of affordable housing. 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. No affordable housing is proposed, however, a financial viability assessment has been submitted to justify this. This is being assessed by an independent consultant to ascertain whether the development cannot support any affordable housing. This will be required before the application is determined. An update will be provided if this assessment is received prior to the committee meeting. 41. Policy 3.4 of the London Plan, taking into account local context and character and public transport capacity, seeks to optimise housing output for different types of location within the relevant density range. The site has a Public Transport Accessibility Level of 6 (Very good to Excellent) and is a Central location. The London Plan’s density range A15
for a site with these characteristics is 650-1100 habitable rooms per hectare and 140-290 units per hectare (for schemes with 3.8- 4.6 habitable rooms per unit). The proposed habitable rooms per hectare is calculated as 703 habitable rooms per hectare and 179 units per hectare. The density of the scheme would therefore be within the density range within the London Plan. 42. Policy DM13 states that housing developments should incorporate a mix of unit sizes and provide 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. 3 out of 14 units would be 3 bed units or more, which represents only 21%. The proposal would not therefore comply with this policy, although one of the 2 bedroom units also includes a separate office and could be used as a 3 bedroom unit. The applicant’s justification for this is that the value from the residential accommodation should be maximised to allow for the restoration and bringing back into use of the listed building. 43. Policy DM13 states that the Council will expect proposals for new residential development to accord with London Plan policies, demonstrating that the scheme has been designed to provide adequate internal space appropriate to the intended number of occupants. All proposed units exceed the London Plan minimum size standards for all unit types in accordance with Policy DM13. 44. None of the units would face solely north. The residential accommodation would be at a level that would be above adjoining buildings and would therefore benefit from an open outlook and view of the sky providing a good standard of accommodation in terms of light, outlook and privacy. The residential accommodation would need to be designed to provide a good standard of internal noise environment. 45. Policy DM13 states that appropriate amenity and play space shall be provided. Policy Guidance 13 of the Residential Design SPD states that 10sqm of private amenity space should be provided per flat plus 1sqm per additional occupant. A minimum of 17sqm and maximum of 198sqm is proposed for each flat in the form of terraces, with each flat having amenity space that exceeds the minimum requirement. 46. Policy Guidance 14 of the Residential Design SPD states that 50sqm of communal amenity space should be provided in addition. However, none is proposed. A total of 767sqm of private amenity space is proposed. The policy generates a requirement of 204sqm of private amenity space and 50sqm of communal amenity space. The proposed amount of communal amenity space would therefore not be in accordance with policy, however, the amount of amenity space provided significantly exceeds the total amount required by policy. 47. The majority of the site is located within Flood Zone 2 (medium probability) with a small part of the site on the south-western side of the site located in Flood Zone 3. Policy DM4 requires a Flood Risk Assessment for all new development in Flood zones 2 and 3. The Environment Agency raise no objection but state that the Flood Risk Assessment should consider flood risk from the Hogsmill and make it resilient to flooding from this source. They have also stated that Sustainable Drainage Systems should be utilised and the applicant A16
should demonstrate how the principles of SuDS could be applied to the development. The applicant has stated that due to the introduction of the basement, the SuDS options are limited, however, the applicant would be willing to accept planning conditions regarding SuDS options and flood resistant/ resilient measures.
Impact on Character and Appearance of Listed Building and Area
48. The building on the site is a Grade 2 Listed Building (listed in 1993) and is a rare example of an Art Deco cinema from the 1930s designed by Robert Cromie. Policy DM12 states that the Council will b) preserve or enhance the existing heritage assets of the Borough through the promotion of high quality design and a focus on heritage- led regeneration; and c) allow alterations which preserve or enhance the established character and architectural interest of a heritage asset, its fabric or its setting; d) ensure that development proposals affecting historic assets will use high quality materials and design features which incorporate or complement those of the host building or the immediate area. Policy DM10 states that development proposals will be required to incorporate principles of good design. The proposed development proposes the restoration and subdivision of this existing building into a number of different uses including retaining many of its historic features and enhancing the state of the existing building which requires a significant amount of work and money to bring it up to a useable standard. The addition of three storeys of residential accommodation would be a significant change to the external appearance of the Listed Building, however, this part of the development would pay for the proposed internal and external restoration and bringing back into use of the existing building. The three storey extension is stepped which would reduce the impact of the development particularly when viewed from close range. The extension would be visible in longer distance views including from the panoramic view from Thatched House Lodge in Richmond Park. The insertion of a large square window and REGAL sign which will replace the brick elevation and small windows would change the appearance of this elevation in particular, which will be visible from the train line and the town centre beyond.
Impact on Neighbours’ Residential Amenity
49. Policy DM10 states that development proposals should have regard to the amenities of occupants and neighbours, including in terms of privacy, outlook, sunlight/daylight, avoidance of visual intrusion and noise and disturbance. 50. Policy Guidance 16 of the Council’s Residential Design SPD states that a separation distance of no less than 21m shall normally be maintained between facing windows of habitable rooms. In general the proposals would be located on the other side of roads from surrounding residential properties. The distance from the existing building to the buildings on the other side of Canbury Park Road and Cowleaze Road is 13m. Windows in the existing and adjacent buildings A17
already directly face existing buildings on the other side of these roads. The additional residential accommodation would not be closer to the surrounding properties than the existing windows and would be at a higher level than the surrounding properties. Terraces would be created at the southern end of the building fronting Canbury Park Road, however, these would also be higher than the surrounding properties. A large square window is proposed at first floor to third floor level in the south facing Canbury Park Road elevation which would be opposite the commercial buildings at the western end of Canbury Park Road. Windows are proposed into the lightwell facing the attached flats at 32-34 Richmond Road from 1 st to 6 th floors. All of these light circulation space and could therefore be obscure glazed and fixed shut to avoid a detrimental impact on the privacy of the adjoining flats. 51. In terms of impact on sunlight/daylight the greatest impact will be to the bedroom windows adjacent to the lightwell at 32-34 Richmond Road. These windows take much of their light from across the application site. The applicants have proposed to mirror the lightwell to improve the relationship beyond that previously proposed. The proposal would result in the loss of all sunlight to these bedrooms and 59 to 93% of daylight. The Building Research Establishment’s guidelines- Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight states that in most circumstances a loss of 20% is considered to be acceptable, however, where windows are taking much of their light from a neighbouring site ‘a mirror image’ building of the same height and size, an equal distance away on the other side of the boundary could be an acceptable approach. The proposed development broadly follows this approach would be higher than the adjoining existing development, however, it should be borne in mind that the affected bedroom windows take almost all their light from across this site and that all of the affected flats also have open aspects fronting onto Cowleaze Road from other windows. In respect of 2-10 Canbury Park Road, there would be no significant impact on sunlight/daylight to these houses. Regent’s Court: would experience a modest loss of daylight, but levels would still be above the level in excess of that recommended by the BRE guidelines, and would experience a modest loss of sunlight. There would be some loss of daylight to properties opposite in Richmond Road, most being below 20%, although three windows would experience a greater loss but up to a maximum loss of 21.8%. There would be a greater loss of daylight to Clarendon House, on the corner of Richmond Road and Cowleaze Road up to a maximum of 36% loss of daylight and some loss of sunlight. Although most windows would have a loss less than 20% of summer sunlight, the impact on the lower angle winter sunlight would be more significant. 3 windows of 5-11 Cowleaze Road would experience losses of daylight greater than 20%, including losses of 34% and 42%, and 2 windows would experience losses of sunlight greater than 20%, including losses of 29% and 32%. The greatest loss of daylight to windows would occur to rooms which are also served by other windows. The impact on sunlight/daylight to the adjoining Educare school would not be significant. 52. There would be some impact on outlook to surrounding properties, although this would tend to be more significant for those properties that have a view of the Richmond Road frontage, as the extensions would be above the building readily seen from Canbury Park Road and A18
Cowleaze Road. 53. The existing building could be used for a variety of existing uses which could lead to some noise/ disturbance. The Council’s Environmental Health Officer has commented that measures to protect noise environment of proposed residential properties should be secured by condition, in particular to ensure no noise disturbance from cinema, dance hall, restaurant/ bar and from traffic noise. Conditions also suggested regarding plant noise and hours of operation of commercial uses and deliveries/ servicing.
Highways & Parking
54. 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. Policy DM8 states that sustainable transport will be supported and promoted including implementation of a Travel Plan and prioritising the access needs of pedestrians and cyclists. Policy DM9 and the London Plan, as referenced in the Sustainable Transport SPD, state maximum residential parking standards for 3 bedroom units is 1 to 1.5 spaces and for 1-2 bedroom units is less than 1 per unit. The London Plan also states that all developments in areas of good public transport accessibility should aim for significantly less than 1 space per unit. A basement car park is proposed with 18 parking spaces accessed from a ramp from Cowleaze Road. Servicing would take place from the existing servicing bays in Canbury Park Road and Cowleaze Road.
Trees
55. There are no trees adjacent to or affected by this development.
A19
Legal Agreements
56. In the event of an approval, in accordance with the Council’s SPD ‘Planning Obligations’ the application would be subject to a legal agreement covering the following. It should be noted the results of the independent viability assessment have not been finalized and the applicants have indicated that they don’t propose to agree to these Heads of Terms and associated payments.: i. An educational contribution of £3900 per 2 bedroom unit and £6500 per 3 bedroom unit and £9100 per 4+ bed unit providing a total of £61100; ii. A health/social care contribution of £1100 per 2 bedroom unit, £1500 per 3 bedroom and £2000 per 4+ bedroom unit providing a total of £16700; iii. A leisure/culture/community contribution of £450 per 2 bedroom unit, £650 per 3 bedroom unit and £800 per 4+ bedroom unit providing a total of £6925; iv. A public realm, open space, children's play, outdoor recreation, biodiversity, riverside contribution of £1600 per 2 bedroom unit and £2600 per 3 bedroom unit and £3200 per 4+ bedroom unit providing a total of £27700; v. A sustainable travel contribution of £900 per 2 bedroom unit, £1300 per 3 bedroom unit and £1600 per 4+ bedroom unit providing a total of £13850; vi. A combined contribution for C1 hotels and non-residential development of £20,000 per 100sqm of development for sustainable and environmental improvements to make a total of £224800 (based on the non-residential floorspace of the rebuilt extension) vii. Community safety and visitor management contribution viii. Travel Plan monitoring fee of £500; ix. Submission of Construction Management Plan for approval and implementation prior to commencement of development; x. Car park management plan, inc parking for disabled occupiers and Electric Vehicle Charging Points; xi. Exclusion from Controlled Parking Zone and Council owned car parks and requirement to notify potential buyers or tenants (£1500 towards amendment to traffic management order); xii. £150 Monitoring fee per planning obligation
Sustainability
57. Council policy CS1 states that the Council will require all major developments to achieve Code level 5 for energy/ CO2 and are encouraged to meet the other Code for Sustainable Homes Level categories (water, materials, surface water run-off and waste). Other new build developments over 500sqm including conversions, refurbishments, extensions and changes of use are encouraged to meet BREEAM Outstanding. Where it is not possible to meet the standards, compelling reasons must demonstrate that achieving the sustainability standards would not be technically feasible or economically viable. Comments have been received from the Council’s sustainability officer, which state: 26% CO2 emissions A20
reduction does not meet the London Plan's 40% target, but given that this is a listed building, which limits what can be achieved this is acceptable and will be partly achieved through the installation of air source heatpumps, solar PV panels and a CHP system. Need to show where solar PVs are proposed to ensure visual acceptability and maximisation of emissions reduction target. Code Level 4 for the residential units and BREEAM Excellent for the cinema, children's play area, office space and restaurant are proposed, which although less than Code Level 5 and BREEAM Outstanding is considered acceptable given the site constraints. Conditions are required to secure this. There are no heat networks for the proposed development to connect to. Other Material Considerations 58. Disabled Access: The play centre has level access to the lower area from the entrances on Richmond Road. The area which utilises the original entrance area is raised (steps) and will need to be made accessible as part of the fit-out works when a tenant is identified. A platform lift could be included within the main entrance steps if necessary. The ground floor entrance to the D1/D2 balcony area has level access and incorporates a lift to take you to the upper floors, including the first floor dance hall and the upper/ rear part of the balcony area. The restaurant area is accessed from Richmond Road – a platform lift in the entrance lobby gives access to wheelchair users. The mezzanine levels have lift access. The residential entrance and all residential levels are fully accessible, as are the office and serviced apartments accessed from Cowleaze Road. The office unit within the existing building has lift access from an entrance in Canbury Park Road. There are disabled parking spaces in the basement with lift access to the upper floors. Lifetimes Homes/ Wheelchair accessible units 59. Policy DM13 states that new residential development will be expected to be designed and built to Lifetime Homes standards and ensure that at least 10% of units would be wheelchair accessible. All properties would be built to Lifetime Homes Standards and 2 out of the 14 units would be wheelchair accessible. This exceeds the policy requirement. 60. Archaeology: Policy DM12 states that heritage assets should be preserved. The site is located within an Archaeological Priority Area. The development could have some impact on archaeological remains. Conditions are required to ensure further information is provided to confirm whether archaeological remains exist on site or whether they have been truncated by quarrying or the building of the cinema building and ensure that the post investigation assessment has been carried out and that building recording takes place.
Background Papers to inform this paper held by Toby Feltham, author of the report, Tel. 02085474707 email [email protected] APPENDIX B
KINGSTON TOWN NEIGHBOURHOOD COMMITTEE
WEDNESDAY 10 SEPTEMBER 2014 REPORT BY HEAD OF PLANNING & TRANSPORT PLANNING APPLICATIONS
INDEX
ITEM REGISTER ADDRESS DESCRIPTION RECOMMENDATION PAGE NO NO NO
B1 13/13055 25 Kingston Hill, Kingston upon Extension to existing basement with PERMIT 2 Thames, Surrey, KT2 7PW front, side and rear lightwells B2 14/12357 150 London Road, Kingston Erection of a two storey roof extension, PERMIT 11 B1 upon Thames, Surrey, KT2 6QL including single storey roof extension above Stag Court to provide 8 No. flats comprising 2 x 1 bedroom, 4 x 2 bedroom and 2 x 3 bedroom flats B3 14/12544 County Hall, Penrhyn Road, Retrospective Planning Application for PERMIT 27 Kingston Upon Thames, KT1 the Change of Use of part of the Ground 2EA Floor of the Surrey Club Building from Sui Generis (Surrey CC Offices) to Educational (D1 - Dance Studio) use; the installation of 3 x air conditioning units and assocaited plant to Surrey Appendix B Club Building B4 14/12561 30 Orchard Road, Kingston Erection of detached building for PERMIT 38 upon Thames, Surrey, KT1 incidental use as a "granny flat" at rear 2QW of garden
APPENDIX B
KINGSTON TOWN NEIGHBOURHOOD COMMITTEE
WEDNESDAY 10 SEPTEMBER 2014 REPORT BY HEAD OF PLANNING & TRANSPORT PLANNING APPLICATIONS
INDEX
ITEM REGISTER ADDRESS DESCRIPTION RECOMMENDATION PAGE NO NO NO
B5 14/12578 2 Caverleigh, Cadogan Road, Erection of rear dormer extension to PERMIT 48 KT6 4DH facilitate loft conversion with rooflight to front elevation and conversion of garage B2 into a habitable room.
B3
KINGSTON TOWN NEIGHBOURHOOD COMMITTEE
WEDNESDAY, 10 SEPTEMBER, 2014
REPORT BY THE
Head of Planning & Transport
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
All recommendations for planning permission in this section are automatically subject to the condition limiting the duration of the permission required by Sections 91 and 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act (as amended) 1990 unless permission is to be granted for a limited period or unless there is a specific recommendation that the period for such duration be other than the period referred to in the standard condition. All background papers are incorporated into Planning Application Reports.
The policies listed are those from the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames the Local Development Framework Core Strategy, Adopted April 2012.
1
B4
Kingston Town Neighbourhood Committee
Date of Meeting: 10/09/2014
B1 Register No : 13/13055/HOU
Address : 25 KINGSTON HILL, KINGSTON UPON THAMES, SURREY, KT2 7PW
(c) Crown Copyright. All right reserved. Royal Borough of Kingston 2007. Licence number 100019285. [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.]
2
B5
Ward : Canbury Description of Proposal : Extension to existing basement with front, side and rear lightwells Plan Type : Householder Expiry Date : 06/02/2014
Applicant's Plan Nos :
Design and Access Statement Received 06/12/2013 Heritage Statement Received 06/12/2013 KIN 1.001 Received 06/12/2013 KIN 2.001 Received 06/12/2013 KIN 2.002 Received 06/12/2013 KIN 2.005 Received 06/12/2013 KIN 4.001 Received 06/12/2013 KIN 4.002 Received 06/12/2013 KIN 4.003 Received 06/12/2013 KIN 4.004 Received 06/12/2013 KIN 5.003 Received 06/12/2013 Location Plan Received 06/12/2013
BASIC INFORMATION
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012
Development Plan : London Plan July 2011 LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012
Policies
LDF CORE STRATEGY CORE POLICIES CS 08 Character, Heritage and Design LDF CORE STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT DM10 Design Requirements for New Developments DM12 Development in Conservation Areas and Affecting Heritage Assets
SPD Residential Design SPD July 2013
3
B6
Previous Relevant History
None
Consultations
1. Neighbour Notification - 17 surrounding owner/occupiers have been consulted with no responses received. 2. Kingston Town Neighbourhood Conservation Area Advisory Committee - Object for following reason: 'This area of Kingston Hill is notorious for the existence of ever changing underground springs and streams. Basements that have been bone dry for years can suddenly flood with water to a depth of 1 metre or more. To excavate below the existing water table can only be described as foolhardy. Such basements are totally unsuitable for the inclusion of underground habitable rooms, however good the "tanking" may be, as water will enter via the windows. If the Council is minded to approve this application, then it could become complicit in any future flooding when it occurs. Digging below the existing footings on clay foundations could compromise the stability of both the structure above and that of the neighbouring buildings.'
-Officer response: A construction method statement and basement impact assessment has been prepared by Glencross and Hudson. This has been assessed by the Council's Building Control office and no objection is raised in principle.
3. Building Control officer: Providing no artificial conduits (such as land drains) are encountered during excavation, officers do not foresee the need for any further measures in the context of hydrology, in this instance. 4. With regard to the impact of the construction of the basement in the wider context, the absence of ground water and the cohesive nature of the ground should make the proposed methodology practicable, without a significant risk of adverse consequences to the subject building or adjoining structures. Officers advise adherence to the guidance contained in the ASUC document Guidelines on safe and efficient basement construction directly below or near to existing structures.
Site and Surroundings
5. The application site is located on the north side of the lower slopes of Kingston Hill between the junctions of Park Road and Brunswick Road. The site is a large rectangular plot occupied by a large detached part 2, part 3 storey residential property with basement. The property has a front drive with ingress and egress access and a large soft and hard landscaped garden to the rear. 6. The site is bound to the sides and rear by the curtilage of residential properties and the wider surrounding area is characterised by a 4
B7
mixture of residential commercial and community uses. 7. The site is located in the Park Road Conservation Area.
Proposal
8. Planning permission is sought for the extension of an existing basement and the creation of 2 lightwells to the front and a lightwell to the rear and each side elevation of the property. The basement area would be increased and the depth of the basement would be increased from 2 metres to 2.8 metres. 9. The proposal is to provide additional living accommodation to the existing use of the property as single family dwelling providing two additional en-suite bedrooms, a cinema, gymnasium and open living area with kitchen. 10. The proposed development would be built in materials to match the host property.
Assessment
The main considerations material to the determination of this application are:
• Principle of Proposed Development • Impact on Character of Area • Impact on Neighbour’s Residential Amenity • Highways and Parking • Trees • Legal Agreements • Sustainability • Other Material Considerations
Principle of Proposed Development
11. The proposed development seeks to extend an existing residential dwelling to provide additional accommodation incidental to the continued enjoyment of the existing and future occupiers of the dwelling. The proposal would not change the use of the site and the proposal would be compatible with the use of the site. The policies of the current development plan and the Council's Residential Design SPD do not preclude such types of development. 12. The principle of development is considered acceptable subject to the development being characteristic of the surrounding area and not being harmful to the character and appearance of the host property, it preserves or enhancing the character and appearance of the conservation area and not cause harm to neighbouring residential amenities.
5
B8
Impact on Character of Area
13. The proposed enlargement of the existing basement would involve the creation of 2 lightwells to the front of the property that would be visible in the street scene . The inner side of the lightwell on the left of the front elevation would have bay window inserted to mirror that of the proportions and appearance of that at ground floor. The right side lightwells inner side would have a set of double doors inserted into the elevation to provide external access to a set of external stairs that would lead up to ground level. The immediate property to the west at 23 Kingston Hill has a similar arrangement and appearance at the lower ground floor basement level. 14. It is considered that the front lightwells and insertion of new fenestration, doors and staircase and guardrails would be a sub- ordinate addition and would be sympathetic in design and appearance to the host property and provide and an acceptable alteration to the host property's appearance and at the same time preserve its character and appearance. 15. It is considered that the front alterations as part of the proposal would be in keeping with the wider character and appearance of the area and would both preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area. 16. The proposed lightwells and insertion of new fenestration, doors and guardrails to the side and rear elevations at lower ground basement level would not be visible in the streetscene . The additions would be of a sympathetic nature designed to match the character and appearance of the host property thus preserving it and would not be intrusive or overbearing additions to the host property. The side and rear additions and alterations as a result of the basement extensions would preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area. 17. It is therefore considered that the proposal would be in accordance with policies CS8 , DM10 and DM12 of the adopted Core Strategy April 2012.
Impact on Neighbours’ Residential Amenity
18. The size, siting and design of the proposed development at ground and lower ground level would not cause any demonstrable harm to the daylight/sunlight provision or outlook of the neighbouring occupiers. The proposal does not have any windows that directly overlook neighbouring habitable room windows or private amenity space. 19. The additional residential accommodation provided would be of an appropriate size and layout for the purposes it intends to serve providing future occupants of the resultant additional accommodation with a usable and practical standard of accommodation. 20. The accommodation would not be overlooked and it is considered the habitable rooms would have a sufficient provision of daylight and outlook ensuring there would not be harm to the residential amenities of the future occupiers 21. The proposal is therefore in accordance with policy DM10 of the
6
B9
Council's adopted LDF Core Strategy April 2012.
Highways & Parking
22. The proposal would not have any impact on highway safety. The proposed front lightwells would not impede vehicles from entering or leaving the site in a forward gear or reduce the potential for the existing number of cars to be parked off-street. 23. The proposal is therefore in accordance with policies DM09 and DM10 of the Council's adopted LDF Core Strategy April 2012.
Trees
24. The proposal would not result in the loss of trees and would not be considered to cause any demonstrable harm to the trees in the vicinity of the proposed development. 25. The proposal is therefore in accordance with policy DM10 of the Council's adopted LDF Core Strategy April 2012.
Legal Agreements
26. The size and type of development does not require a legal agreement.
Sustainability
27. The quantum and nature of development is such that no specific sustainability criteria/policy requirements are sought but it would be expected that the applicant follows current best practice. The development is below the thresholds outlined in Policy DM1 of the adopted Core Strategy April 2012.
Other Material Considerations
28. The Kingston Town CAAC have raised objection on the grounds of flooding and ground stability in relation to the proposed development and the potential for the development to be a contributor to both events. The applicant is required to submit a construction method statement to demonstrate that the proposal would not result in any ground instability or flooding and this has been submitted in support of the application. No objection is raised on this matter by officers and the proposal is considered to be in accordance with Policy DM10 of the Council's adopted LDF Core Strategy April 2012 and Policy 43 of the Council's Residential Design SPD July 2013.
7
B10
Recommendation :
Approve subject to the following conditions: 1 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 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:
Design and Access Statement 06/12/2013 Heritage Statement 06/12/2013 KIN 1.001 06/12/2013 KIN 2.001 06/12/2013 KIN 2.002 06/12/2013 KIN 2.005 06/12/2013 KIN 4.001 06/12/2013 KIN 4.002 06/12/2013 KIN 4.003 06/12/2013 KIN 4.004 06/12/2013 KIN 5.003 06/12/2013 Location Plan 06/12/2013
Reason: For avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
3 The facing materials to be used in the construction of the extensions and alterations shall be those specified on the application form and approved drawings or such other materials as have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development is commenced and shall thereafter be retained as such. 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.
4 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 is commenced.
8
B11
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).
5 The accommodation hereby permitted shall be occupied solely for purposes incidental to the occupation and enjoyment of the application property as a single dwelling and shall not be used as a separate unit of accommodation. Reason: The establishment of an additional independent unit of accommodation would give rise to an over-intensive use of the site and lead to an unsatisfactory relationship between independent dwellings.
6 The basement enlargement hereby approved shall only be implemented in accordance with the details and measures approved as part of the construction management plan submitted by Glencross & Hudson, which shall be maintained throughout the entire construction period unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning. Reason: In order to safeguard the amenities of the surrounding residential occupiers and to safeguard highway safety and the free flow of traffic in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012.
Informative(s)
1 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.
2 You have been granted planning permission to build a residential extension. When undertaking demolition and/or 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. Furthermore, please ensure that all vehicles associated with the construction of the development hereby approved are properly washed and cleaned to
9
B12
prevent the passage of mud and dirt onto the adjoining highway. 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. For further information and advice, please contact - Environmental Health Department Pollution Section.
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: carry out work to an existing party wall; build on the boundary with a neighbouring property; in some circumstances, carry out groundwork’s 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 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 favourably.
5 Ground Level / Base Level Unless clearly specified otherwise, the base of the development shown on the approved plans is taken to be external ground level, and not a Damp Proof Course or Internal Finished Floor Level. The external ground level is expected to remain consistent before and after construction of the approved development unless specified otherwise on the approved plans.
10
B13
Kingston Town Neighbourhood Committee
Date of Meeting: 10/09/2014
B2 Register No : 14/12357/FUL
Address : 150 LONDON ROAD, KINGSTON UPON THAMES, SURREY, KT2 6QL
(c) Crown Copyright. All right reserved. Royal Borough of Kingston 2007. Licence number 100019285. [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.]
11
B14
Ward : Norbiton Description of Proposal : Erection of a two storey roof extension, including single storey roof extension above Stag Court to provide 8 No. flats comprising 2 x 1 bedroom, 4 x 2 bedroom and 2 x 3 bedroom flats Plan Type : Full Application Expiry Date : 11/07/2014
Applicant's Plan Nos :
1340 Amended Area Schedule Rev A Received 28/08/2014 1340(PL)002_Rev A - Existing Ground Received 09/04/2014 Floor 1340(PL)003_Rev A - Existing First Received 09/04/2014 Floor 1340(PL)004_Rev A - Existing Second Received 09/04/2014 Floor 1340(PL)006 Site location plan Received 22/04/2014 1340(PL)020 Rev A - Existing North Received 16/05/2014 Elevation 1340(PL)021 Rev A - Existing South Received 16/05/2014 Elevation 1340(PL)022 Rev A - Existing Internal Received 16/05/2014 Elevations 1340(PL)023 - Existing West Elevation Received 16/05/2014 1340(PL)024 Rev A - Existing Flank Received 16/05/2014 Elevations 1340(PL)202 Rev B - Proposed Internal Received 20/06/2014 Elevations 1340(PL)203 Rev B - Proposed West Received 20/06/2014 Elevation 1340(PL)B-001 Block plan Received 22/04/2014 1340(PL)B-100_Rev C - Ground Floor Received 22/04/2014 Plan 1340(PL)B-101_Rev C - First Floor Plan Received 22/04/2014 1340(PL)B-102_Rev C - Second Floor Received 22/04/2014 Plan 1340(PL)B-103_Rev F - Third Floor Received 20/06/2014 Plan 1340(PL)B-104_rev E Fourth floorplan Received 28/07/2014 1340(PL)B-105 Rev E Roof plan Received 28/07/2014
12
B15
1340(PL)B-200_Rev E - Proposed North Received 20/06/2014 Elevation 1340(PL)B-201 Rev E - Proposed South Received 20/06/2014 Elevation 1340(PL)B-210 - London Road View 01 Received 20/06/2014 1340(PL)B-211 - London Road View 02 Received 20/06/2014 1340(PL)B-212 - Aerial View Received 20/06/2014 1340(PL)B-213 - Example of Built Work Received 20/06/2014 1340(PL)B204 Rev A - Proposed Flank Received 20/06/2014 Elevation 1340(PL)D-100 Rev C - Proposed Received 15/07/2014 Ground Floor Plan 140404_22617_150 London Received 09/04/2014 Road_CSH_Pre-Assessment 140404_22617_Janiking House_150 Received 09/04/2014 London Road_Energy Strategy Report_AMENDED (3) 29Jan14 - DSO Report Received 09/04/2014 Affordable Housing Statement Received 18/04/2014 Daylight & Sunlight Report Received 16/05/2014 Design and Access Statement Received 27/08/2014 Planning Statement Final Received 09/04/2014 Transport Statement Received 10/04/2014
BASIC INFORMATION
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012
Development Plan : London Plan July 2011 LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012
Policies
LONDON PLAN JULY 2012 LP 3.11 Affordable housing targets LP 3.12 Negotiating affordable housing on indivi LP 3.13 Affordable housing thresholds LP 3.3 Increasing housing supply LP 3.4 Optimising housing potential LP 3.5 Quality and design of housing development LP 3.8 Housing choice LP 5.2 Minimising carbon dioxide emissions 13
B16
LP 5.3 Sustainable design and construction LP 6.13 Parking LP 7.4 Local character LP 7.8 Heritage assets and archaeology LP 8.2 Planning obligations LDF CORE STRATEGY CORE POLICIES CS 01 Climate Change Mitigation CS 02 Climate Change Adaptation CS 05 Reducing the Need to Travel CS 06 Sustainable Travel CS 07 Managing Vehicle Use CS 08 Character, Heritage and Design CS 10 Housing Delivery LDF CORE STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT DM01 Sustainable Design and Construction Stan DM03 Designing for Changing Climate DM08 Sustainable Transport for new Development DM09 Managing Vehicle Use for New Development DM10 Design Requirements for New Developments DM11 Design Approach DM12 Development in Conservation Areas and Af DM13 Housing Quality and Mix DM15 Affordable Housing LDF CORE STRATEGY IMPLEMENT POLICIES IMP3 Securing Infrastructure
N/A
Previous Relevant History
13/12926/PN Change of use from Class B1(a) Prior Approval Granted O offices to Class C3 residential, 23/12/2013 to provide 15 x 1 and 2 bedroom flats 23822 The construction of offices & 4 Conditional Permission dwellings on three floors with 22/04/1981 parking 29373 Change of use of ground floor to Conditional Permission showroom & offices in 25/04/1985 connection with the displays & sale of micro computers & external alterations
Consultations
1. Neighbouring Occupiers : 173 local occupiers have been consulted and a site notice displayed outside the premises. One letter of objection has been received from a local resident who comments that whilst they like the potential look of the development and the intention 14
B17
to regenerate this building, the proposed building would be too high. The top floor flats at 144 London Road will become much overlooked and our view of the surrounding area will be spoilt. The building will also be the largest in the area and will look out of place. 2. Two letters of support have been received, one of the letters from a local resident states that the existing building is a bland, functional building of no architectural merit. The proposed alterations will make the building less bland and improve the townscape. 3. English Heritage (Archaeology) : There is no requirement to consult to Greater London Archaeology Advisory Service about this application. 4. Housing Services : It has been demonstrated through financial appraisal that the site cannot support the provision of on-site affordable housing. The offer of £14,500 is an acceptable contribution towards delivery of affordable housing on an alternative site or other affordable housing initiative. 5. Neighbourhood Traffic Engineer : No objection, subject to entering a car free agreement. 6. Sustainability Officer : The proposal complies with policy requirements and is acceptable, subject to appropriate conditions.
Site and Surroundings
7. The site is located on the junction of London Road and Coombe Road. It is located in a mixed use area, with predominately commercial uses at ground floor and residential uses above. 8. The site comprises a three storey purpose built office building, with 4 flats fronting Coombe Road. 9. The majority of the buildings in this part of London Road are between three and four storeys, with some five storey buildings. 10. The site has good access by public transport with a PTAL rating of 4, and is within half a kilometre of Norbiton railway station and located a number of bus routes. 11. The site is within an Archaeological Priority Area.
Proposal
12. Planning permission is sought for the erection of a roof extension comprising fourth floor and part fifth floor to provide 8 No. flats with the following mix of accommodation: 2 No. 1-bedroom 2 person flats; 4 No 2-bedroom flats (4 No. 2-bed 3 person flats); and 2 No. 3-bedroom flats (2 No. 3-bed 5 person flats). 13. The additional fourth floor has two main elements, comprising a recessed floor on the part of the building which fronts London Road and the corner element (extending two bays along Coombe Road) which is surrounded by a brick framework detail reflecting the buidling bays beneath, and a brick faced fourth floor element over the existing residential flats in Coombe Road. The fifth floor element would be part recessed and sited on the London Road frontage up to the junction with Coombe Road, but does not continue the length of Coombe Road. 15
B18
14. There are no alterations proposed to the existing car park access or parking layout, although new cycle and refuse storage facilities are introduced in the in ground floor void areas. 15. The existing building benefits from a Prior Approval Consent approval for 15 No. flats under reference 13/12926/PNO. The current scheme is capable of separate implementation. A further separate application has been submitted for external alterations to the existing building at ground, first and second floors. These external alterations do not overlap with either the PNO or rooftop schemes. 16. All three elements will be capable of separate implementation, and are not interdependent.
Assessment
The main considerations material to the determination of this application are:
• Principle of Proposed Development • Impact on Character of Area • Impact on Neighbour’s Residential Amenity • Highways and Parking • Trees • Legal Agreements • Sustainability • Other Material Considerations
Principle of Proposed Development
17. A Prior Notification application has been approved for the residential use of the lower floors, and there are four existing flats. Therefore the principle of residential use of the site is established. Core Strategy (CS) Policy CS10 seeks to maximize the opportunities for delivering new housing. Paragraph 49 of the NPPF states that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The principle of providing 8 additional housing unit on the site is supported in principle, subject to compliance with other development plan policies. 18. Housing Quality and Mix 19. Policy DM13 of the Councils Core Strategy states that the Council will expect proposals for new residential development to incorporate a mix of unit sizes and types and provide a minimum of 30% of dwellings as 3 or more bedroom units, unless it can be demonstrated that this would be unviable. The proposal includes a mix of unit size, including two 3- bed units. The proposed mix provides 25% 3-bed units and 75% suitable for accommodating more than 2 persons and is considered acceptable for this urban site. 20. In terms of the size and quality of accommodation, the relevant policies and standards are provided within the Council's Residential Design
16
B19
SPD and the London Plan and London Housing SPG. Six of the proposed flats are duplex flats, and all of the proposed flats comply with or exceed the minimum standards. All flats would be built to comply with Lifetime Home Standards. 21. Amenity space: It is not possible to provide a communal garden area given the existing building constraints. However, all flats are provided with private terraces.
Impact on Character of Area
22. Policies CS8, DM10 & DM11 seek to achieve a high quality built environment in the borough. This will be achieved by conserving and enhancing the existing environment and requiring that a high standard of design for new development is achieved which is appropriate to the character of the surroundings. 23. The building sits on a prominent corner location and curves around the junction of Coombe Road and London Road. The proposed two storey extension results in a building of five storeys in height, and steps down to four storeys on Coombe Road to reflect the reduced scale of development in Coombe Road. It is noted that the existing building with its broad curving facade appears somewhat squat and inelegant within the streetscene. The proposed increase in height on this prominent corner building is considered of appropriate scale and to respond to the character of the area. It is noted that the building on the opposite side of the road at 144 London Road (83 flats permitted under reference 02/12257/FUL) includes a recessed fifth storey and the more recently permitted scheme at 180-190 London Road, currently in the course of construction, is also five storeys on the London Road frontage. Overall, it is considered that the proportions of the building will be improved. 24. The proposed design is a lightweight contemporary rooftop extension set back 1.8 metres from the building facade. The fourth floor is set within framed balustrade elements of matching brickwork set above the brick facade. This feature assists visually with the linkage of the existing building with the zinc clad upper floors. There is some concern about how the new brickwork would marry with the existing. The applicant has confirmed that the proposed brick, Bristol Mixed Red, is a close match; also, as the proposed brick framework is to be set back in line with the face of the recess, the joint between the existing and the proposed will be less prominent. Samples of facing materials are reserved by condition, together with detailed specification for the brick framework. 25. Therefore, whilst clearly of a greater height and bulk than the existing composition, the overall design is considered acceptable in this location and not incongruous when compared to the adjoining 1980's- built development and other newer developments in London Road and Coombe Road.
Impact on Neighbours’ Residential Amenity
26. Core Strategy Policy DM10 seeks to safeguard residential amenities in 17
B20
terms of noise and disturbance, privacy, outlook, and daylight/sunlight. 27. A Daylight and Sunlight Assessment has been submitted with this application which is based on the Building Research Establishment (BRE) Report "Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight(2011) , which has assessed the impact of the development on the neighbouring properties at 163-165 London road, 160-164 London road, 1-11 Coombe Road, Flats 1-14 Northwood House, Flats 1-17 Bembridge House and Stag Court (which are the 4 flats within the application site itself). 28. In assessing the impart on daylight, 121 neighbouring windows were tested in accordance with the BRE guidelines. One window at first floor level in the adjoining building at 160-164 London Road was found to receive a loss of daylight/ vertical sky component VSC)marginally greater than recommended, with a reduction of 23.9% compared with the recommended acceptable loss of 20% (which would not be noticeable to occupants). The BRE guidelines however, go on to consider the effect on lighting to windows which have balconies above them, as in this case, and notes that where there is a balcony above the window it will cut out light from the top part of the sky, so that even a modest obstruction might result in a large relative impact on the VSC. When the assessment is made without the balcony, the window would pass the test and only experience a loss of 13.6%. On this basis, it is shown that it is the balcony, rather than the extension that is the main factor in the loss of light. 29. In assessing sunlight, 58 windows were tested. Two windows were not found to meet the BRE requirements, the same first floor window at 160-164 London Road, and one window at 1-11 Coombe Road. The window in 160-164 London Road would continue to receive in excess of the target of 25% for annual sunlight but does not meet the winter target. In overall percentage terms the guidelines allow a 20% loss of the former value; the proposal would result in a loss of 20.6% loss. It is noted that sunlight is restricted by the presence of the existing overhead balcony, as discussed above. In respect of the window in Coombe Road, it is noted that the window is a secondary side return window, with an alternative main window. Overall, the impact of the development is considered reasonable given this constrained urban site. 30. The scheme was revised during the course of the application, with the profile of the interior courtyard elevation amended to step back at both levels to improve the daylight received by the existing neighbouring properties. The Daylight and Sunlight report is in the process of being updated to reflect these changes; and any significant changes will be reported to Committee as late material. 31. In terms of privacy, there is a high degree of mutual overlooking between windows of the application site and neighbouring properties across the internal lightwell given the location of the site, at the apex of the junction with Coombe Road and London Road. It is not considered that the extension proposed would result in any material increase in overlooking from the proposed rear windows. Given the separation distances, it is not considered that the proposed roof extension would result in any material loss of privacy to occupiers on the opposite side 18
B21
of Coombe Road and London Road. 32. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with Policy DM10.
Highways & Parking
33. Policy DM9 seeks to ensure that new development does not contribute to congestion or compromise highway safety. One of the criteria identified in policy DM10 is that all development must be provided with adequate off-street parking in accordance with the standards set out in the London. To meet the parking standards, the application would be required to provide 8 off street parking spaces. No additional parking is provided with the application. 34. There is an existing car park, which is unaffected by this proposal. The spaces within the car park are allocated to the existing flats and the flats within the lower floors forming part of the approved Prior Notification scheme. 35. The application site is in an area that has very limited on street parking provision for residents, and where on street parking is already heavily subscribed. The lack of off street parking would result in added pressure for residents parking provision in the area. However, as the site is located within an area of good transport accessibility (PTAL 4) The Neighbourhood Traffic Engineer has raised no objection on the basis that the scheme is 'car capped', to prevent eligibility to acquire residents parking permits. 36. Appropriate cycle parking facilities are provided for each flat.
Trees
37. There are no trees affected by the current proposal, and as the proposal relates to a roof extension there is no scope to include landscaping.
Legal Agreements
38. In accordance with the Council Planning Obligation Supplementary Planning Document September 2011 this application is accompanied by a commitment to enter a S106 agreement to secure the financial contributions as set out below: (1) Education contribution £28,600 (2) Health and social care contribution £8,800 (3) Sustainable Environment contribution £15,000 (4) Sustainable Travel contribution £7,500. 39. In addition, the applicant has offered a contribution of £14,500 as an offsite contribution towards affordable housing. 40. The agreement would also preclude eligibility to apply for residents parking permits.
19
B22
Sustainability
41. The application includes a Code for Sustainable Homes pre- assessment report that details how the 8 x new build flats will reach Code level 4, which satisfies Core Strategy Policy DM1. In addition, an Energy Statement details how the development will meet the higher CO2 emission reduction rate required to meet London Plan Policy 5.2 requirements of 40% emissions reduction compared to a Building Regulations Part L 2010 baseline. It is considered appropriate to secure these sustainability measures by condition.
Other Material Considerations
42. In accordance with Policy DM15 of the LDF Core Strategy, the Council would require that in schemes of eight flats, as currently proposed, three flats should be provided as affordable housing. Any scheme departing from this policy requirement need to be justified through the provision of a financial appraisal. A development appraisal has been submitted with this application and carefully reviewed by Housing Services, who confirm that the applicant has demonstrated that the scheme cannot provide the on-site delivery of affordable housing. The applicant has however offered to make an off-site contribution towards affordable housing over and above the standard S106 contributions , and a balance of £14,500 is secured through the accompanying legal agreement. Housing Services have confirmed that they would accept a contribution of £14,500 towards either delivery of affordable housing on an alternative site, or other affordable housing initiatives. 43. Archaeology: The site is within an archaeological priority area. However, no ground works are proposed with this application for roof extensions and there is no requirement for further site evaluation. 44. The site is located within flood zone 1 (low risk). There is therefore no requirement to submit a Flood Risk Assessment with this application .
Recommendation :
Approve subject to the following conditions: 1 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 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:
20
B23
1340(PL)002_Rev A - Existing Ground Floor 09/04/2014 1340(PL)003_Rev A - Existing First Floor 09/04/2014 1340(PL)004_Rev A - Existing Second Floor 09/04/2014 1340(PL)B-100_Rev C - Ground Floor Plan 22/04/2014 1340(PL)B-101_Rev C - First Floor Plan 22/04/2014 1340(PL)B-102_Rev C - Second Floor Plan 22/04/2014 140404_22617_150 London Road_CSH_Pre- 09/04/2014 Assessment 140404_22617_Janiking House_150 London 09/04/2014 Road_Energy Strategy Report_AMENDED (3) 29Jan14 - DSO Report 09/04/2014 Planning Statement Final 09/04/2014 Transport Statement 10/04/2014 1340(PL)006 Site location plan 22/04/2014 1340(PL)B-001 Block plan 22/04/2014 Affordable Housing Statement 18/04/2014 Daylight & Sunlight Report 16/05/2014 1340(PL)022 Rev A - Existing Internal Elevations 16/05/2014 1340(PL)023 - Existing West Elevation 16/05/2014 1340(PL)024 Rev A - Existing Flank Elevations 16/05/2014 1340(PL)020 Rev A - Existing North Elevation 16/05/2014 1340(PL)021 Rev A - Existing South Elevation 16/05/2014 1340(PL)B-210 - London Road View 01 20/06/2014 1340(PL)B-211 - London Road View 02 20/06/2014 1340(PL)B-212 - Aerial View 20/06/2014 1340(PL)B-213 - Example of Built Work 20/06/2014 1340(PL)B-103_Rev F - Third Floor Plan 20/06/2014 1340(PL)B-200_Rev E - Proposed North Elevation 20/06/2014 1340(PL)B-201 Rev E - Proposed South Elevation 20/06/2014 1340(PL)202 Rev B - Proposed Internal Elevations 20/06/2014 1340(PL)203 Rev B - Proposed West Elevation 20/06/2014 1340(PL)B204 Rev A - Proposed Flank Elevation 20/06/2014 1340(PL)D-100 Rev C - Proposed Ground Floor 15/07/2014 Plan 1340(PL)B-104_rev E Fourth floorplan 28/07/2014 1340(PL)B-105 Rev E Roof plan 28/07/2014
21
B24
Design and Access Statement 27/08/2014 1340 Amended Area Schedule Rev A 28/08/2014
Reason: For avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
3 The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until 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.
4 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 prior to the commencement of the development, such facilities to be permanently retained at the site. 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 House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012.
5 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 amenities of the adjoining residential occupiers in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012.
6 All works on site shall take place in accordance with the following details which shall have previously been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of work: (Specify as Appropriate) (a) Provision for loading/unloading materials. (b) Storage of plant, materials and operatives vehicles. (c) Temporary site access.
22
B25
(d) Signing system for works traffic. (e) Measures for the laying of dust, suppression of noise and abatement of other nuisance arising from development works. (f) Location of all ancillary site buildings. (g) Measures to protect any tree, shrubbery and other landscape features to be retained on the site during the course of development. (h) Means of enclosure of the site. (i) Wheel washing equipment. (j) The parking of vehicles of the site operatives and visitors (k) The erection and maintenance of security hoarding. (l) A scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works (Major Applications). Reason: In order to safeguard the amenities of the surrounding residential occupiers and to safeguard highway safety and the free flow of traffic in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012.
7 A sample of the facing materials to be utilised in the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any works on site are commenced. The development shall then be built in accordance with these approved samples. 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.
8 The development shall be completed in accordance with the following details which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, before building operations commence. (a) Detailed cross-sections through the brickwork balustrade frame at a scale of 1:20 and 1:5. (b) any external lighting. (c) any external plant. (d) details of frameless glass balconies, including safety rails at a scale of 1:20 and/or 1:5. 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.
23
B26
9 No flues or pipework, other than rainwater pipes, shall be fixed to the elevations other than those shown on the drawings hereby approved or in accordance with details which shall have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012.
10 Except for the terraces shown on the approved drawings, the roof of the extension hereby permitted shall not be converted or used as a balcony or a sitting out area, and no access shall be gained except for maintenance purposes. Reason: To protect the amenities and privacy of the adjoining residential properties in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012.
11 Prior to construction of the development a Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4 interim design-stage assessment certificate shall be submitted to and approved 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 (July 2011) and Policy DM1 (Sustainable Design and Construction Standards) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012.
12 Within 6 months of completion, a final Code for Sustainable homes level 4 certificate should be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of sustainability and energy conservation in accordance with Policy MW3 of the Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames Unitary Development Plan First Alteration, 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.
13 Within 6 months of completion, a final Building Regulations Part L 2010 output document must be submitted, demonstrating that the development achieves a minimum 40% reduction from the baseline Target Emission Rate. Reason: In the interests of sustainability and energy conservation in accordance with Policy MW3 of the Royal Borough of Kingston Upon 24
B27
Thames Unitary Development Plan First Alteration, 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.
14 No construction of any residential unit hereby permitted shall begin until details of the lifetime homes specification/standards have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the wheelchair housing occupants in order to comply with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012, Policy 7.2 (An Inclusive Environment) of the London Plan July 2011 and comply with Supplementary Planning Document 'Access for All' (July 2005).
Informative(s)
1 In order to achieve a Code Level, the development must be assessed by a registered Code Assessor. A List of Code Assessors can be found at:
2 The development approved by this planning permission will be liable to pay the Mayor of London's Community Infrastructure Levy (MCIL). We have calculated the amount of MCIL liability to be £27,580 . Payment will be due once the owner/developer serves a development Commencement Notice on the Council, and a payment Demand Notice has been received by the owner. Failure to submit a Commencement Notice will incur a surcharge of 20% of the chargeable amount or £2,500, whichever is the lower amount. When you have [delete as appropriate] received approval of all reserve matters / discharged all pre-commencement conditions the Council will issue a Liability Notice to the owner setting out the MCIL calculation. Accompanying the Liability Notice will be a blank Commencement Notice and if necessary a blank Assumption of Liability form, both of which need to be completed and returned to the Council prior to development commencing. A failure to do so will incur a surcharge. Should you have any questions in respect of the contents of this letter or the MCIL more generally, please contact the Council's Contact Centre
25
B28
by email [email protected]
3 The lifetime homes specification/standards referred to in condition 13 shall be in accordance with 'Meeting Part M and Designing Lifetime Homes' published in 1999 (or the latest edition thereof) by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and incorporate the features listed in the Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames Supplementary Planning Advice Note 'Lifetime Homes and Wheelchair Housing' dated December 2007 (or as modified or replaced).
4 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 favourably.
26
B29
Kingston Town Neighbourhood Committee
Date of Meeting: 10/09/2014
B3 Register No : 14/12544/FUL
Address : COUNTY HALL, PENRHYN ROAD, KINGSTON UPON THAMES, KT1 2EA
(c) Crown Copyright. All right reserved. Royal Borough of Kingston 2007. Licence number 100019285. [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.] 27
B30
Ward : Grove Description of Proposal : Retrospective Planning Application for the Change of Use of part of the Ground Floor of the Surrey Club Building from Sui Generis (Surrey CC Offices) to Educational (D1 - Dance Studio) use; the installation of 3 x air conditioning units and assocaited plant to Surrey Club Building Plan Type : Full Application Expiry Date : 11/07/2014
Applicant's Plan Nos :
Air Conditioning Roof Spec Received 31/07/2014 Air Conditioning Wall Spec Received 31/07/2014 Air Handling System Block Plan Received 31/07/2014 Block Plan Received 15/05/2014 Change of Use Ground Floor Plan Received 15/05/2014 Existing General Layout Received 31/07/2014 Existing Roof Layout Section Received 31/07/2014 FASS Management Plan Received 13/08/2014 Mechanical Ventilation Layout Received 31/07/2014 Noise Assessment Received 15/05/2014 Proposed Roof Layout Section CC DD Received 31/07/2014 Proposed Roof Layout Section EE Received 31/07/2014 Site Location Plan Received 15/05/2014
BASIC INFORMATION
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012
Development Plan : London Plan July 2011 LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012
Policies
LDF CORE STRATEGY CORE POLICIES CS 01 Climate Change Mitigation LDF CORE STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT DM01 Sustainable Design and Construction Stan DM10 Design Requirements for New Developments
28
B31
N/A
Previous Relevant History
14/12545/LDE Use of part of the second floor Issue Use 11/07/2014 (and associated circulation at the ground and first floors) of the Surrey County Club for educational use (use class D1).
Consultations
1. Neighbouring Occupiers : 105 neighbouring properties have been notified about this proposal, which has also been advertised on site and in the local press. 9 letters of objection have been received from residents of Woodbines Avenue, Kensington Gardens, Milner Road and South Lane on the following grounds: (1) Last summer (2013) the University moved a professional sound system into what had previously been their gym. The use has caused considerable noise and distress. The use has been operating at night and without supervision. Windows in neighbouring houses could not be left open (2) The type of music is "urban dance". It is loud, bass-orientated, club-type music, sometimes with aggressive and offensive lyrics. (3) Hours of use (currently until 10 pm 7 days a week). The use is proposed daily, the only restriction proposed is at weekends and public holidays when the hours are restricted to 4 pm. There is no respite. Suggested hours 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday and 8am to 1pm on Saturdays (as with building work). (4) Students leaving the facility are noisy in the local roads. (5) Unsupervised: The use is not regulated by university employees on site. Students use the facilities independently and their inconsiderate behaviour goes unchecked. Residents are left to police the facility themselves. (6) Security: the dance studio has an open area adjacent to the fire door, where students congregate and make noise. (7) Due to the proximity of adjacent residential properties it is unrealistic to assume that sound proofing can guarantee that there will be no noise disturbance in the future. (8) Loss of privacy as a result of students in close proximity to neighbouring houses. (9) The facility should be accommodated within the main campus. 2. Environmental Health Officer : No objection is raised, subject to conditions. The applicant has submitted a suitably robust acoustic report that applies appropriate measurement and design target criteria and providing the schedule of mitigation measures are implemented, no loss of amenity is likely to arise. 3. English Heritage : No comments. The application should be determined in accordance with local policy. 29
B32
4. Kingston Conservation Area Advisory Committee : No observations.
Site and Surroundings
5. The application site is known as the Surrey County Club and is located on the south side of County Hall in Penrhyn Road. The three storey building dates back to the late 1960s, and has been used in connection with County Hall as a staff club and staff canteen. 6. County Hall is a grade II listed building, and this the SC is indicated as a curtilage building. The application site is not within a conservation area. 7. The site is bounded by the Reg Bailey Building and residential properties in Woodbines Avenue to the South, residential properties to the west in Milner Road and Surrey County Hall to the north. 8. The University advise that they have used the Surrey Club (SC) as a teaching building for the past 10 years, for academic purposes with ancillary offices. The ground floor of the SC is currently used to house its B. A. Dance course. The University advise that the current activities within the building are planned to be relocated elsewhere in the Penrhyn Road campus in due course as a result of the proposed redevelopment of the Town House.
Proposal
9. Retrospective planning permission is sought for the use of part of the ground floor of the Surrey Club Building from Sui Generis (Surrey CC Offices) to Educational (D1 - Dance Studio) use. The application relates to three main halls/dance studios, comprising dance studio 1 which fronts Penrhyn Road, dance studio 2, and a third "Warm-Up" studio, which has windows and a door on the southern elevation, adjacent residential properties in Woodbines Avenue. 10. The ground floor space is currently used by the University's Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences for dance rehearsals space including the associated changing room facilities. Dance classes and rehearsal take place throughout the day from 08:00 to 22:00 on Mondays to Fridays and at weekends from 10:00 to 16:00. 11. During the course of the application it has been amended to provide 3 x air conditioning units one air handling unit on the roof of the single storey addition to the Surrey Club ( 1004-1114-798mm W-D-H) and 2 wall mounted units on the north elevation of the Surrey Club (each measuring 1050-330+ 30-1338mm W-D-H), which would allow doors and windows to the warm up studio to be kept closed. 12. The application includes details of proposed noise attenuation measures and a Management Control Plan. 13. The application has been submitted as a result of noise complaints and enforcement investigations.
30
B33
Assessment
The main considerations material to the determination of this application are:
• Principle of Proposed Development • Impact on Character of Area • Impact on Neighbour’s Residential Amenity • Highways and Parking • Trees • Legal Agreements • Sustainability • Other Material Considerations
Principle of Proposed Development
14. The building was originally built as a social club for County Hall. It is understood to have been occupied by Kingston University for the past 10 years. It is noted that a lawful development certificate was recently issued for the use of part of the second floor (and associated circulation at the ground and first floors) of the Surrey County Club for educational use (use class D1) connected with Kingston University. 15. Core Strategy Policy CS15 states that the " Council will continue to work in partnership with Kingston University and Kingston College, recognising their importance to the local economy, to identify appropriate opportunities, including on their existing sites, to meet their needs for new and upgraded facilities.." 16. Therefore, in principle there is no objection to the continued use of part of the ground floor for educational use (Class D1) as dance studios , subject to no adverse impact on residential amenity, as discussed below.
Impact on Character of Area
17. Policy DM10 of the Core Strategy (Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) requires development to incorporate principles of good design. Policy DM10(t) also seeks to avoid locating structures, including building plant, where they will be visually intrusive and likely to result in an adverse effect on the character and visual amenities of the wider area. 18. The proposed air conditioning units located on the southern wall of the warm up studio would not be visible from public view, or from neighbouring residential properties. The proposed roof mounted air conditioning plant comprises one centrally located air conditioning unit with associated ductwork. The a/c unit is approximately 1 metre in height and width, and the trunking would be approximately 500mm above the height of the flat roof. The proposed roof plant would not be visible from public view. The roof mounted plant would be partially visible from some properties in Woodbines Avenue, particularly during 31
B34
the winter months when the trees have lost their leaves. Given its size and location, it is considered that there should have some form of visual screening surrounding the roof plant, and a condition is recommended to secure the provision of such a screen. With the inclusion of the screen, it is considered that the plant would not be significantly detrimental to the character and appearance of the locality, particularly given the presence of other items of plant on this flat roof. On this basis, the proposed alterations accord with the requirements of Policy DM10. 19. There are no other external alterations proposed. 20. Given the location of the flat roof on the southern side of the Surrey Club, there would be no adverse affect on the character or appearance the listed building... The proposal therefore also accords with Policy DM12.
Impact on Neighbours’ Residential Amenity
21. The proposal includes three main dance studios. The warm up studio and to a lesser extent dance studio 2 have over the past year caused noise disturbance emanating from within the dance studios to residential dwellings in Woodbines Avenue. The minimum separation distance from the rear garden at 1 Woodbines Avenue to the fire escape door serving the Warm-up Studio is approximately 5.5 metres, with a 30 metre separation to the main house. 22. The Environmental Health department investigated the situation last year following the receipt of noise complaints, and as a result the University installed a noise limited sound system in the dance studio at the rear of Woodbines Avenue. The Environmental Health Officer noted at that time that if the students do use the sound limited system properly then the likelihood for noise nuisance would be significantly reduced. However, should students bring in their own sound equipment and play music at unreasonable volumes with windows and doors open then this could result in the loss of amenity? 23. The Environmental Health Officer advised that the building's ability to contain noise was likely to be compromised by the openable, single glazed windows and the fire door which can be propped open. The windows and fire escape door were noted as the weakest acoustic point of the building. This has remained an unresolved problem due to the need for dancers to have adequate ventilation. 24. This application has been accompanied by a Dance Studio Noise Assessment, which has assessed the noise break out and identified mitigation measures. From survey results and subjective assessment the main cause of the noise issue was found to be the Warm-up Studio and the tendency for it to be used with the windows and/or door open. Secondary noise issues also arise from Dance Studio 2. There were no identified noise issues from dance studio 1. 25. The report proposes mitigation measures, in the Warm-up Studio these would include the fixing of appropriate secondary glazing to all windows, to replace the fire exit door with an acoustically rated door, with break-glass opening device to avoid casual opening, and the
32
B35
blocking of the fan openings within the roof. For dance Studio 2, the report recommends the boarding over of the high level windows with Soundbloc plasterboard. 26. The report notes that the measures proposed for the Warm-up Studio would require the installation of a mechanical ventilation system. The application was amended to include details of the proposed ventilation system, including 3 air conditioning units. The service engineers who have designed the proposed ventilation system have confirmed that the proposed air handling and air conditioning units and associated ducting will adhere with the noise levels identified within main report. 27. The Environmental Health Officer has confirmed that the submitted acoustic report is suitably robust that applies appropriate measurement and design target criteria. It is advised that providing the schedule of mitigation measures as detailed in Para 4.1 are implemented; no loss of amenity is likely to arise. 28. The University have confirmed that the mitigation measures would be put in place within six weeks of obtaining permission. At the time of the site visit (July 2014) it was noted that the fire escape door was protected by an alarmed system where the glass would need to be broken to allow the door to be unlocked and opened. 29. The University have submitted a Management Control Plan, which confirms that the following measures either have been implemented or will be implemented within three months (report dated 14/7/2014): 1. Installation of sound limiters to all equipment installed in these spaces and weekly/monthly checks by Technical staff. All of the sound equipment used at the SC now has noise limiters fitted. 2. Improvements to the Access Control Door entry system to continue to enhance the security control of the SC building. This work is currently being undertaken at the Surrey Club. 3. KUSCO Security, who control the opening and closing of the building, to do so promptly at the agreed times to manage hours of use. This security process is consistent with the University's campus wide approach and has already been implemented. 4. KUSCO and/or KU to respond to any complaints from neighbours, including, where appropriate, an investigative visit to the premises. KU also has in place a Community Enquiries Complaints Officer (CECO); this is a dedicated employee who is available to respond to issues raised by neighbours. This CECO and KUSCO partnership give neighbouring properties certainty that the SC building is secure and any complaints will be dealt with. 5. Access restrictions for certain areas for certain times, both physical key locks and/or access control based allowing more granular opening and closing of certain areas. In particular those areas in close proximity to neighbours such as PR.SC.00.014. This work will be completed within three months of planning permission being granted, as stated within the `planning application. 6. Academic staff to ensure timetabling of live music is located only in Studio 1 (PR.SC.00.003.) The timetables implemented for the new 2014/2015 academic year beginning in September 2014 33
B36
will ensure this measure is implemented. 7. Installation of networked noise monitoring units to be investigated/undertaken which could send an alert to the KUSCO security control room if noise levels in a dance studio exceed a pre-set decibel level, this would give Security the tools to act proactively to pre-empt rather than respond reactively to neighbour complaints. 8. Monitoring of bookings and usage of areas to ensure compliance. The log will be used from the September 2014 academic year. 9. Continued marketing to students and staff of the need to keep noise levels at acceptable levels and respect local neighbours. Via posters, within taught classes, via VLEs email etc. This work will be undertaken in time for the new academic year at Kingston (2014/2015), which begins in September 2014. 10. Explanation of studio usage terms and conditions at Induction of new and current students in the new academic year, starting in September 2014. This explanation will be reiterated and carried forward throughout each academic year. 11. Inclusion of studio usage terms in student contracts. As noted above, the inclusion of the studio usage terms will be explained to all current and new students. The usage terms will be included in student contracts through each academic year the Surrey Club is occupied. 12. Induction for new staff and explanation of new terms and conditions of studio usage to all full time and peripatetic staff. This work will be completed in the new academic year (September 2014). 13. Sanctions to be applied to students not complying with the instructions / management plan following the University's standard student disciplinary process. 30. The Management Plan is in the process of being updated to specify that students will not be permitted to use their own sound systems and use only the sound equipment provided and fitted with a noise limiter. 31. The University have also agreed to reduce the hours of operation initially sought, so that the Warm-up Studio is only used between 8am and 8pm Monday to Friday and 10am and 4pm at the weekend, which would be secured by condition 32. In these circumstances, it is considered appropriate to grant planning permission subject to a condition which precludes use of amplified music within the Warm-up Studio until the identified noise mitigation measures have been implemented and the air conditioning equipment has been installed. It is also recommended that a compliance condition is included, which requires the mitigation measures to be implemented and the submission of an updated noise survey within 6 weeks from the grant of planning permission to demonstrate that the there is no noise nuisance when the studios are in use. In the event that the updated noise measurements do not meet the predicted noise levels an additional mitigation strategy and timetable for implementation would be required to be submitted to and agreed with the Council and implemented in accordance with an agreed timetable. 34
B37
Highways & Parking
33. The site is located on the opposite side of Penrhyn Road from the main university campus. Therefore, there is unlikely to be any significant highway/ parking implications associated with the current proposal.
Trees
34. There are no trees affected by this application to regularise the existing use.
Legal Agreements
35. There are no legal agreements associated with this application.
Sustainability
36. There are no issues in respect of sustainability associated with this application to regularise the existing use.
Other Material Considerations
37. It is not considered that the objection based on student behaviour in local streets could support grounds for refusal as the application site is located opposite the main student campus.
Recommendation :
Approve subject to the following conditions: 1 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:
Block Plan 15/05/2014 Change of Use Ground Floor Plan 15/05/2014 Site Location Plan 15/05/2014 Noise Assessment 15/05/2014 Air Conditioning Wall Spec 31/07/2014 Air Conditioning Roof Spec 31/07/2014 Proposed Roof Layout Section CC DD 31/07/2014 Air Handling System Block Plan 31/07/2014
35
B38
Existing Roof Layout Section 31/07/2014 Existing General Layout 31/07/2014 Mechanical Ventilation Layout 31/07/2014 Proposed Roof Layout Section EE 31/07/2014 FASS Management Plan 13/08/2014
Reason: For avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
2 There shall be no use of amplified music within the Warm-up Studio until the noise mitigation measures identified in the report by AAD dated 6 May 2014 have been completed, and the air conditioning equipment has been installed. Reason: In order to secure a reduction in the noise emanating there from and in the interests of the residential amenities of the area in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012.
3 Within 6 weeks of the date of this consent the noise mitigation measures as set out within the Dance Studio Noise Assessment will be implemented and an updated noise survey undertaken and submitted to the Council to demonstrate that the approved development will not have an adverse impact on nearby residential uses. If the updated noise measurements do not meet the predicted noise levels an additional mitigation strategy and timetable for implementation must be submitted to and agreed with the Council and implemented in accordance with the agreed timetable. Reason: In order to secure a reduction in the noise emanating there from and in the interests of the residential amenities of the area in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012.
4 The rating level of the noise determined by the cumulative sound emissions of the plant hereby permitted shall be at least 5dBA lower than the existing background noise level at any given time of operation. The noise levels shall be measured or predicted 1m externally to any window at the nearest residential facade. Measurements and assessment shall be made according to British Standard 4142:1997. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012.
36
B39
5 The use of the Warm-Up Studio (Room PR.00.014 ) shall be limited to the hours of 08:00-20:00 Monday to Friday and 10:00-16:00 on Saturdays and Sundays. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012.
6 Notwithstanding the details shown on drawing No. 1429_13_P_031, the roof plant shall be surrounded by a visual screen along the southern, eastern and western sides, in accordance with details which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The screen shall be provided within four months from the date of this permission, and thereafter permanently retained. 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.
Informative(s)
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 favourably.
37
B40
Kingston Town Planning Sub Committee
Date of Meeting: 10/09/2014
B4 Register No : 14/12561/HOU
Address : 30 ORCHARD ROAD, KINGSTON UPON THAMES, SURREY, KT1 2QW
(c) Crown Copyright. All right reserved. Royal Borough of Kingston 2007. Licence number 100019285. [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.] 38
B41
Ward : Grove Description of Proposal : Erection of detached building for incidental use as a "granny flat" at rear of garden Plan Type : Householder Expiry Date : 22/07/2014
Applicant's Plan Nos :
01 Site Survey Received 25/05/2014 3 CARS EXISTING PARKING Received 25/05/2014 30 Existing plans Received 25/05/2014 4 VEHICLES EXISTING PARKING Received 25/05/2014 Arboricultural Implications Assessment Received 02/06/2014 & Method Statement DESIGN AND ACCESS STATEMENT Received 25/05/2014 30 ORCHARD ROAD KT1 2QW DETAIL OF GREEN ROOF AND Received 25/05/2014 SOLAR PV CELLS 30 OR Enlarged Site plan Received 25/05/2014 EXISTING AND PROPOSED PHOTO Received 25/05/2014 MONTAGE 1 EXISTING AND PROPOSED PHOTO Received 25/05/2014 MONTAGE 2 EXISTING AND PROPOSED PHOTO Received 25/05/2014 MONTAGE 3 EXISTING AND PROPOSED PHOTO Received 25/05/2014 MONTAGE 4 EXISTING AND PROPOSED PHOTO Received 25/05/2014 MONTAGE 5 Existing block plan Received 25/05/2014 Flood Map Received 25/05/2014 GA 000 01 Proposed plans and Received 25/05/2014 landscape plan PHOTOMONTAGE 6 Received 25/06/2014 PHOTOMONTAGE 7 Received 25/05/2014 PHOTOMONTAGE 8 Received 25/05/2014 PHOTOMONTAGE 9 Received 25/05/2014 Proposed block plan Received 25/05/2014 Site location plan Received 25/05/2014
39
B42
BASIC INFORMATION
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012
Development Plan : London Plan July 2011 LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012
Policies
LDF CORE STRATEGY CORE POLICIES CS 08 Character, Heritage and Design LDF CORE STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT DM10 Design Requirements for New Developments DM12 Development in Conservation Areas and Af
Previous Relevant History
14/12573/FUL Erection of single storey Refused 28/07/2014, dwelling. Appeal Lodged 26/08/2014 14/12592/LDP Erection of a detached Issue Operations outbuilding 04/07/2014
Consultations
1. Neighbour notification: 19 owner/occupier consultation letters have been issued. 5 letters of objection have been received. The objections are summarised as follows: -Out of keeping with the area -loss of outlook and privacy -concern that building will be used as separate accommodation -Parking pressures -Flood risk 2. Kingston Town Neighbourhood Conservation Area Advisory Committee : Neutral 3. Tree and Landscape officer - no objections 4. English Heritage : No Archaeological requirement.
Site and Surroundings
5. The application site is located on the south side Orchard Road. The site is a large elongated rectangular plot with a two storey semi- detached residential dwelling. The site benefits from an area of hard standing to the front of the dwelling providing off-street parking and a 40
B43
large soft and hard landscaped garden to the rear. 6. The site is bound to the sides and rear by the curtilage of residential properties and there are residential properties opposite the site to the front. The surrounding area is predominantly residential in character and appearance. 7. The application site is located in the Fairfield/Knights Park Conservation Area.
Proposal
8. Planning permission is sought for the erection of a detached single storey outbuilding at the rear of the property to facilitate a 'granny annex' to be used as ancillary residential accommodation to the host dwellinghouse and not be used as a separate self-contained residential unit independent of the occupants of the residential dwellinghouse. 9. The building would be located at the southern end of the site at the bottom of the rear garden. The building would have a float roof and a height of 2.5 metres and a width of 6.1 metres and length/depth of 14.1 metres. 10. The building would replace the existing shed.
Assessment
The main considerations material to the determination of this application are:
• Principle of Proposed Development • Impact on Character of Area • Impact on Neighbour’s Residential Amenity • Highways and Parking • Trees • Legal Agreements • Sustainability • Other Material Considerations
Principle of Proposed Development
11. The proposed development seeks to provide additional ancillary residential accommodation to the host property. Although the building would be detached from the main dwellinghouse it would still form part of the existing planning unit. The applicant has stated that the building would be used for elderly relatives and the building is shown on the submitted drawings to have no kitchen with cooking and dining for the occupants to be within the existing dwellinghouse. The building proposed would provide a rest and sleeping area and WC and shower facilities. A small recessed courtyard is proposed to provide an outlook to the rooms to the rear of the building. The access to the building 41
B44
would be through the main dwellinghouse only. The building would not have an independent access. 12. It is considered that he use is compatible with the use of the site and would not change the nature of the use of the existing planning unit. The policies of the current development plan do not preclude such types of development and offers an adequate standard of accommodation for future occupants for the purposes it is proposed to serve. 13. The principle of the development is considered acceptable subject to not causing harm to the character and appearance of the host property, it preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of the Fairfield/Knight's Park Conservation Area and not causing harm to the residential amenities of the neighbouring occupiers. a suitable condition shall be placed on any permission preventing the building being used as a separate self contained unit of accommodation.
Impact on Character of Area
14. The proposed building would be considered to be low in height (rising 2.5 metres above ground level) and of an appropriate size proportionate to the size of plot on which it is to be situated. The building would have the general character and appearance of a domestic outbuilding and would be built in rendered walls with a flat sedum roof and glazed openings. The building would be largely screened from the surrounding properties by the host property itself and the boundary treatment which would stand at 2 metres tall. It is considered that the outbuilding would not be a dominant overbearing or visually intrusive feature in the surrounding area. 15. The proposal would not sub-divide the plot and it is considered that the outbuilding would be indicative of the general pattern and form of development in the area which evidently has ancillary residential outbuildings in the rear gardens of the surrounding properties. 16. It is considered that the proposed development would preserve the character and appearance of the host property and would not detract from the character and appearance of the host property. 17. The proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with Policies CS8 , DM10 and DM12 of the Council's adopted LDF Core Strategy April 2012.
Impact on Neighbours’ Residential Amenity
18. The proposed development would not have any windows that would directly overlook the habitable room windows or private amenity space of the neighbouring occupiers. The building would be of a size, siting and design that would not impede the outlook or daylight/sunlight provision of the neighbouring occupiers. 19. It is not considered that the nature of the development which is incidental to and ancillary to the host dwellinghouse would result in any demonstrable adverse harm to the neighbouring occupiers by way of noise disturbance. 42
B45
20. The proposed development is therefore considered to be in accordance with Policy DM10 of the Council's adopted LDF Core Strategy April 2012.
Highways & Parking
21. The proposed outbuilding is to provide ancillary additional residential accommodation. Sufficient space for off-street parking exists on the hard standing to the front of the dwellinghouse to accommodate 4 car parking spaces. This is considered to be more than sufficient to absorb any possible increase in demand for parking as a result of the development. It is therefore considered that the proposal would not result in any additional on-street parking pressures or prejudice existing traffic movements. 22. It is therefore considered that the proposal is in accordance with policies DM9 and DM10 of the Council's adopted LDF Core Strategy April 2012.
Trees
23. The proposed development would not have any adverse tree or landscape impacts. 24. The proposal is therefore in accordance with policy DM10 of the Council's adopted LDF Core Strategy April 2012
Legal Agreements
25. The size and type of development does not require a legal agreement
Sustainability
26. The quantum and nature of development is such that no specific sustainability criteria/policy requirements are sought but it would be expected that the applicant follows current best practice. The development is below the thresholds outlined in Policy DM1 of the adopted Core Strategy April 2012. However the development does offer up a green roof in the form of a sedum roof which is welcomed by officers.
Other Material Considerations
27. The proposed development is not located in a flood zone and as such it is not considered that the proposal would result in any adverse flood impacts.
43
B46
Recommendation :
Approve subject to the following conditions: 1 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 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:
3 CARS EXISTING PARKING 25/05/2014 4 VEHICLES EXISTING PARKING 25/05/2014 DESIGN AND ACCESS STATEMENT 30 25/05/2014 ORCHARD ROAD KT1 2QW DETAIL OF GREEN ROOF AND SOLAR PV 25/05/2014 CELLS 30 OR EXISTING AND PROPOSED PHOTO MONTAGE 1 25/05/2014 EXISTING AND PROPOSED PHOTO MONTAGE 2 25/05/2014 EXISTING AND PROPOSED PHOTO MONTAGE 3 25/05/2014 EXISTING AND PROPOSED PHOTO MONTAGE 4 25/05/2014 EXISTING AND PROPOSED PHOTO MONTAGE 5 25/05/2014 PHOTOMONTAGE 6 25/06/2014 PHOTOMONTAGE 7 25/05/2014 PHOTOMONTAGE 8 25/05/2014 PHOTOMONTAGE 9 25/05/2014 Flood Map 25/05/2014 Enlarged Site plan 25/05/2014 Site location plan 25/05/2014 Proposed block plan 25/05/2014 Existng block plan 25/05/2014 01 Site Survey 25/05/2014 30 Existing plans 25/05/2014 GA 000 01 Proposed plans and landscape plan 25/05/2014 Arboricultural Implications Assessment & Method 02/06/2014 Statement
Reason: For avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. 44
B47
3 The facing materials to be used in the construction of the building shall be those specified on the application form and approved drawings or such other materials as have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development is commenced and shall thereafter be retained as such. 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.
4 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting this Order) no windows or other openings (other than those hereby approved) shall be formed in the side walls of the building hereby approved without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To protect the amenities and privacy of the occupiers of the adjoining residential properties in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012.
5 The roof of the extension hereby permitted shall not be converted or used as a balcony or a sitting out area, and no access shall be gained except for maintenance purposes. Reason: To protect the amenities and privacy of the adjoining residential properties in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012.
6 The accommodation hereby permitted shall be occupied solely for purposes incidental to the occupation and enjoyment of the application property as a single dwelling and shall not be used as a separate unit of accommodation. Reason: The establishment of an additional independent unit of accommodation would give rise to an over-intensive use of the site and lead to an unsatisfactory relationship between independent dwellings in accordance Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012.
Informative(s)
1 Your attention is drawn to the need to comply with the relevant provisions of the Building Regulations, the Building Acts and other 45
B48
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.
2 You have been granted planning permission to build a residential extension. When undertaking demolition and/or 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. Furthermore, please ensure that all vehicles associated with the construction of the development hereby approved are properly washed and cleaned to prevent the passage of mud and dirt onto the adjoining highway. 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. For further information and advice, please contact - Environmental Health Department Pollution Section.
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: carry out work to an existing party wall; build on the boundary with a neighbouring property; in some circumstances, carry out groundwork’s 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 Ground Level / Base Level Unless clearly specified otherwise, the base of the development shown on the approved plans is taken to be external ground level, and not a Damp Proof Course or Internal Finished Floor Level. The external ground level is expected to remain consistent before and after construction of the approved development unless specified otherwise on the approved plans.
5 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, 46
B49
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 favourably.
47
B50
Kingston Town Neighbourhood Committee
Date of Meeting: 10/09/2014
B5 Register No : 14/12578/HOU
Address : 2 CAVERLEIGH, CADOGAN ROAD, KT6 4DH
(c) Crown Copyright. All right reserved. Royal Borough of Kingston 2007. Licence number 100019285. [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.]
48
B51
Ward : Grove Description of Proposal : Erection of rear dormer extension to facilitate loft conversion with rooflight to front elevation and conversion of garage into a habitable room. Plan Type : Householder Expiry Date : 12/08/2014
Applicant's Plan Nos :
1416/01 Existing Plans & Elevations & Received 22/05/2014 Site Location Plan 1416/02 Rev B Proposed Floor Plans Received 21/08/2014 and Elevations Design & Access Statement Received 22/05/2014
BASIC INFORMATION
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012
Development Plan : London Plan July 2011 LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012
Policies
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN SPG Residential Extensions LDF CORE STRATEGY CORE POLICIES CS 08 Character, Heritage and Design LDF CORE STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT DM10 Design Requirements for New Developments DM12 Development in Conservation Areas and Af
Previous Relevant History n?
Consultations
1. 11 neighbours consulted. 6 responses received. 2. 6 objections have been received in relation to the proposal. The main planning issues are as follows: 3. The proposed rear dormer, second floor Juliet balcony and proposed garage conversion would not be in keeping with the character and appearance of the original property or the neighbour’s row of terraced
49
B52
properties. 4. The proposed rear dormer and second floor Juliet balcony would result in a significant loss of light and privacy to the neighbouring properties. 5. Other concerns have been raised in relation to access in the event of a fire. The neighbour's concerns are noted, however, this matter would be considered in an application for Building Regulations approval.
Site and Surroundings
6. The proposal site is located on the north side of Cadogan Road, and comprises a three storey townhouse and sits within a row of 7 terraced properties known as Caverleigh . The site is located opposite the Cadogan Road Conservation Area which is generally characterised by residential properties. The proposal site is not situated adjacent to any Listed Buildings or Buildings of Townscape Merit and there are no protected trees situated within felling distance from the site.
Proposal
7. Permission is sought to erect a rear dormer window, to replace an existing 1st floor window with a new larger window with a lower cill and to convert the garage into a habitable room with associated external alterations. 8. The application as originally submitted included the installation of a Juliet balcony at first floor; however, following advice from Officers the applicant has revised the scheme to retain 1 of the original windows and to install a new window with a lower cill . 9. The proposed dormer window would be installed in the centre of the original roof with a height of 1.6 metres, a width of 2.4 metres and a depth of 3 metres. The proposed rear dormer would be set down from the ridge of the original roof scape by 1.5 metres and would be set in from the eaves by 1.3 metres.
Assessment
The main considerations material to the determination of this application are:
• Principle of Proposed Development • Impact on Character of Area • Impact on Neighbour’s Residential Amenity • Highways and Parking • Trees • Legal Agreements • Sustainability • Other Material Considerations
50
B53
Principle of Proposed Development
10. It is considered that the principle of erecting an extension to an existing house in a residential area is acceptable, subject to compliance with other Local Planning Policies and Guidance.
Impact on Character of Area
11. Policy Guidance 39 of the Residential Design SPD states that dormer windows should be designed so that they: 12. Are set down from the ridge line of the existing roof by at least 500mm 13. Are set in from the sides and the eaves of the existing roof by 500mm 14. Are designed to complement the character of the existing house and wider area, and 15. Match or line up with any original windows below 16. It is considered that the proposed rear dormer window meets the requirements set out in the Residential Design SPD and would be subordinate on the original roof scape and would respect the architectural integrity of the original property. The dormer window would be constructed in high quality materials with lead cheeks and a lead roof with windows to match the existing windows on the lower floors, and a condition is recommended to secure this. In addition, as the proposed dormer window is modest in size, it is considered that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the adjacent Conservation Area. Therefore the proposed rear dormer window would accord with Policies DM10 , DM12 and CS8 of the Core Strategy and the Residential Design SPD . 17. The proposed new window at first floor would be slightly larger than the existing window and would be UVPC to match the windows in the existing property. As such, it is considered the proposal would not adversely affect the character and appearance of the original property and as the window would not be visible from the street scene, it would not adversely affect the character and appearance of the wider area. 18. The proposed replacement of the existing garage door with a window and rendered wall would be visible, but it is considered that it would not significantly detract from the character and appearance of the property or the street scene. .
Impact on Neighbours’ Residential Amenity
19. It is considered that as the dormer would be modest in size, it would not result in a significant loss of light, outlook or privacy to the neighbouring properties at Nos.1 and 3 Caverleigh . 20. The proposed rear dormer window would be situated approximately 10.5 metres from the side elevation of the neighbouring property at No.109 Maple Road but would not directly face a habitable room window. As such, the by reason of the existing proximity of the host
51
B54
dwelling in relation to the neighbouring property at No.109 Maple Road, it is considered the proposed rear dormer window would not exacerbate the existing situation with regard to overlooking. Similarly, the proposed first floor window by reason of its similar design and appearance to the existing window would not result in a further loss of amenity to the neighbouring properties. As such the proposed window would be acceptable and would be in accordance with Policy DM10 of the Core Strategy and the Residential Design SPD.
Highways & Parking
21. The proposal would include the conversion of the existing garage area to a habitable room and would include the installation of a ground floor window to replace the garage door. As a result, the proposal would result in a loss of an existing off-street parking space. However, it is considered that the existing driveway supports 1 off-street parking space and therefore the proposed loss of the garage space would not have a significant impact on on-street parking in the area. As such, the proposal accords with Policy DM10 of the Core Strategy.
Trees
22. N/A
Legal Agreements
23. N/A
Sustainability
24. N/A
Other Material Considerations
25. N/A
Recommendation :
Approve subject to the following conditions: 1 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) 52
B55
2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:
Design & Access Statement 22/05/2014 1416/01 Existing Plans & Elevations & Site Location 22/05/2014 Plan 1416/02 Rev B Proposed Floor Plans and 21/08/2014 Elevations
Reason: For avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
3 The facing materials of the rear dormer window will be constructed in lead roof and cheeks and windows to match the existing windows in the main dwelling. 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.
Informative(s)
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 favourably.
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: 53
B56
carry out work to an existing party wall; build on the boundary with a neighbouring property; in some circumstances, carry out groundwork’s 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 You have been granted planning permission to build a residential extension. When undertaking demolition and/or 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. Furthermore, please ensure that all vehicles associated with the construction of the development hereby approved are properly washed and cleaned to prevent the passage of mud and dirt onto the adjoining highway. 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. For further information and advice, please contact - Environmental Health Department Pollution Section.
54
C1 Appendix C Kingston Town Neighbourhood Committee 10 September 2014 Enforcement: 17 Bearfield Road, Kingston, KT2 5ET Report by Director of Place
Purpose To obtain authority to issue Enforcement Notice(s) with the aim of removing the identified breaches of planning control at the site. Recommendations To RESOLVE that the Corporate Solicitor and the Interim Head of Planning and Transport be authorised to: 1. issue an Enforcement Notice (s) under S. 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), 2. withdraw and to vary such notice (s) under S. 173A, 3. in the event of non-compliance, take action (s) by way of prosecution under S. 179, S.187A and/or direct action under S. 178 of the Act in respect of the breach of planning control/or for injunctive relief under S.187B.
Site and surroundings
A. This report concerns a two storey semi-detached residential property situated on the Northern side of Bearfield Road. The immediate area is wholly residential in character, with surrounding properties also consisting of two storey semi-detached and detached dwellings of a similar scale and footprint to number 17. The property has already been subject to single storey side and rear extensions and a first floor rear extension see following section). As a result of the single storey side/porch extension, a detached outbuilding (used for the storage of bicycles) has been relocated further to the front of the property. This building forms the subject of this report. B. Number 17 Bearfield Road is not Listed, does not lie within a Conservation Area, and does not have any other specific policy designation within the 2012 Core Strategy.
Planning history 1. The relevant planning history of the site is summarised in the table below:
Planning Reference Description Decision
11/12776/HOU Erection of a single storey side and Permit with rear extensions conditions 25/01/2012 05/12314/FUL Erection of first floor rear extension Permit with conditions 14/11/2005
C2 2. The breach of planning control consists of the erection/re-location of a detached outbuilding (used for the storage of bicycles) to the front of this property. Photographs of this extension are present in ANNEX 1 at the end of this report. 3. A site visit in July 2014 was undertaken to confirm the breach of planning and to conduct a preliminary planning assessment in relation to the outbuilding. The building is situated on land forward of a wall forming the principal elevation of the original dwellinghouse, and thus conflicts with paragraph (b) of Class E of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended). As such, it requires planning permission. 4. The owner was informed that the outbuilding required planning permission, however it was indicated that an application to retain this building as constructed would likely be unsuccessful due to the reasons set out below. As such, a retrospective planning application was not invited in this case.
Planning Considerations
Impact on the Character and Appearance of the surrounding area
5. Policies CS8, DM10 and DM11 of the Core Strategy state that developments will be required to incorporate principles of good design, and that the Council will resist any development that detrimentally affects the quality of the environment. 6. Policy Guidance 41 (Outbuildings) of the Council’s Residential Design Supplementary Planning Document (July 2013) states that outbuildings should: • Be positioned as far away as possible from any shared boundaries to stop overshadowing of neighbouring houses. • Not be built forward of the established building line, ie in front of the existing house • Relate well to the design of the existing house • Generally be built of similar materials to the existing house, and • Not affect the existing parking provision of the development and any parking lost as a result of the outbuilding should be replaced on site. 7. The erected building is composed of unpainted timber. It is situated behind some recently planted young bamboo plants. It has a height of approximately 1.4m, and lies approximately 500mm from the front boundary. Given its bulk and proximity to the front boundary (and public highway) it is considered to appear prominent and visually intrusive. 8. Whist the bamboo does provide some screening when viewed from opposite the property, it does little to soften the prominent appearance of the building when walking along the Northern side of Bearfield Road. 9. The erected building is therefore considered to detract from the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area, in conflict with the aforementioned policies and guidance. 10. It is noted that there is a similar building in front of number 36 Bearfield Road, which is subject to a separate enforcement case. Another building is present at number 15, however this building is not located forward of the property and thus does not appear unduly prominent. It also appears to have been present for a notable time period (at least since March 2010) and thus would be immune to enforcement action. C3
Impact on the amenities of neighbouring residents.
11. Policy DM10 (k) of the Core Strategy states that developments should have regard to the amenities of occupants and neighbours, including in terms of privacy, outlook, sunlight/daylight, avoidance of visual intrusion and noise and disturbance. 12. Whilst the outbuilding is considered to detract from the streetscene, it is not considered to be of a bulk or scale which has any material or detrimental impact on the amenities of the adjoining occupiers in terms of loss light or outlook. No windows are present and the building cannot be used for habitable purposes and so there are no adverse implications in terms of privacy. As such, no conflict with policy DM10(k) has been identified. Likewise, the building has no impact on parking or any trees or landscaping features.
Recommendation
13. Given the assessment above, it is considered that the erected outbuilding is contrary to policy and therefore it is recommended that an Enforcement Notice be served requiring the removal of this building and the resulting building materials from the Land. 14. Whilst the Notice will require the removal of the building, the owner also has the option of removing the breach of planning by relocating the building into the rear garden where it would no longer require planning permission.
Timescale for compliance
15. The suggested period for compliance is to be within 3 months of the Enforcement Notice taking effect. This time period is considered reasonable for the steps in the Notice to be completed.
Reasons for issuing the notice 16. The erected outbuilding, due to its bulk and positioning, is considered to represent a prominent and incongruous feature which harms the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area. It therefore conflicts with DM10(k) of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2012) and the Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design (adopted July 2013).
Background papers – held by Paul Young (author of report) [email protected] 0208 547 5309
List of reports/documents
• Enforcement File ref EN/13898
C4 ANNEX 1 – Photographs of the erected outbuilding
C5
C6
D1 Appendix D Kingston Town Neighbourhood Committee 10 September 2014 Enforcement: 38 Aragon Road, Kingston, KT2 5QE Report by Director of Place
Purpose To obtain authority to issue Enforcement Notice(s) with the aim of removing the identified breaches of planning control at the site. Recommendations To RESOLVE that the Corporate Solicitor and the Interim Head of Planning and Transport be authorised to: 1. issue an Enforcement Notice (s) under S. 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), 2. withdraw and to vary such notice (s) under S. 173A, 3. in the event of non-compliance, take action (s) by way of prosecution under S. 179, S.187A and/or direct action under S. 178 of the Act in respect of the breach of planning control/or for injunctive relief under S.187B.
Site and surroundings
A. This report concerns a two storey mid terrace residential detached residential property situated on the South Western side of Aragon Road. The immediate area is predominantly residential in character, with surrounding properties consisting of two storey terrace, semi-detached and detached dwellings of a similar scale and footprint to number 36. The property has recently been subject to a single storey rear extension under permitted development (see planning history). A detached outbuilding (used for the storage of bicycles) has recently been stationed to the front of this property which forms the subject of this report. B. Number 38 Aragon Road is not listed, does not lie within a Conservation Area, but does lie within a designated Local Area of Special Character (LASC).
Planning history 1. The relevant planning history of the site is summarised in the table below:
Planning Reference Description Decision
12/12317/LDP Erection of a single storey rear Issue Operations extension 09/07/2012
2. The breach of planning control consists of the erection of a detached outbuilding (used for the storage of bicycles) to the front of this property. Photographs of this extension are present in Annex 1 at the end of this report. 3. A site visit in July 2014 was undertaken to confirm the breach and to conduct a preliminary planning assessment in relation to the outbuilding. The building is situated on land forward of a wall forming the principal elevation of the original dwellinghouse, and thus conflicts with paragraph (b) of Class E of Schedule 2 of the D2 Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended). As such, it requires planning permission. 4. The owner was informed that the outbuilding required planning permission, however it was indicated that an application to retain this building as constructed would likely be unsuccessful due to the reasons set out below. As such, a retrospective planning application was not invited in this case.
Planning Considerations
Impact on the Character and Appearance of the surrounding area
5. Policies CS8, DM10 and DM11 of the Core Strategy state that developments will be required to incorporate principles of good design, and that the Council will resist any development that detrimentally affects the quality of the environment. 6. Policy Guidance 41 (Outbuildings) of the Council’s Residential Design Supplementary Planning Document (July 2013) states that outbuildings should: • Be positioned as far away as possible from any shared boundaries to stop overshadowing of neighbouring houses. • Not be built forward of the established building line, ie in front of the existing house • Relate well to the design of the existing house • Generally be built of similar materials to the existing house, and • Not affect the existing parking provision of the development and any parking lost as a result of the outbuilding should be replaced on site. 7. The erected building is composed of timber, and is coloured green. It has a length of approximately 2m and an approximate height of 1.5m (which means it protrudes above the existing front boundary wall). It therefore is notable in scale and bulk, and neither the box-like design nor the materials of the outbuilding compliment the main house or the Local Area of Special Character. This, combined with its proximity to the front boundary, public highway, and junction with Lancaster Gardens, makes it appear particularly prominent and intrusive. 8. The erected building is therefore considered to detract from the character and appearance of the site and the Local Area of Special Character, in conflict with the aforementioned policies and guidance. 9. No other properties within Aragon Road display front outbuildings, save for number 29 Aragon Road which has a smaller timber building used to store bins. Some other buildings are located along an adjoining road (Lancaster Gardens), some of which appear to be immune from action and others which may for the subject of future reports.
Impact on the amenities of neighbouring residents.
10. Policy DM10 (k) of the Core Strategy states that developments should have regard to the amenities of occupants and neighbours, including in terms of privacy, outlook, sunlight/daylight, avoidance of visual intrusion and noise and disturbance. 11. Whilst the outbuilding is considered to detract from the streetscene, it is not considered to be of a bulk or scale which has any material or detrimental impact on the amenities of the adjoining occupiers in terms of loss light or outlook. No windows are present and the building cannot be used for habitable purposes and so D3 there are no adverse implications in terms of privacy. As such, no conflict with policy DM10(k) has been identified. Likewise, the building has no impact on parking or any trees or landscaping features.
Recommendation
12. Given the assessment above, it is considered that the erected outbuilding is contrary to adopted policy and therefore it is recommended that an Enforcement Notice be served requiring the removal of this building and the resulting building materials from the Land. 13. Whilst the Notice will require the removal of the building, the owner also has the option of removing the breach of planning by relocating the building into the rear garden where it would no longer require planning permission.
Timescale for compliance
14. The suggested period for compliance is to be within 3 months of the Enforcement Notice taking effect. This time period is considered reasonable for the steps in the Notice to be completed.
Reasons for issuing the notice 15. The erected outbuilding, due to its bulk, design, materials and siting is considered to represent a prominent and incongruous feature which harms the character and appearance of the site and the Local Area of Special Character. It therefore conflicts with DM10(k) of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2012) and the Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design (adopted July 2013).
Background papers – held by Paul Young (author of report) [email protected] 0208 547 5309
List of reports/documents
• Enforcement File ref EN/13893
D4 ANNEX 1 – Photographs of the erected outbuilding
E1 Appendix E Kingston Town Neighbourhood Committee 10 September 2014 Enforcement: 9 Dudley Road, Kingston, KT1 2UN Report by Director of Place
Purpose To obtain authority to issue Enforcement Notice(s) with the aim of removing the identified breaches of planning control at the site. Recommendations To RESOLVE that the Corporate Solicitor and the Interim Head of Planning and Transport be authorised to: 1. issue an Enforcement Notice (s) under S. 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), 2. withdraw and to vary such notice (s) under S. 173A, 3. in the event of non-compliance, take action (s) by way of prosecution under S. 179, S.187A and/or direct action under S. 178 of the Act in respect of the breach of planning control/or for injunctive relief under S.187B.
Site and surroundings
A. This report concerns the use of a part single, part two storey building (and front yard) situated on the eastern side of Dudley Road. The site has a history of commercial based uses, including as a base for a cleaning business in the late 1990s. The site was also in an unauthorised use as a base for private hire vehicles for a short period after this. The use of the site after the early 2000s is currently unknown, but prior to this the site fell within the B1 (business) use class (‘Joy Construction), and this is its assumed lawful use. The site currently pays commercial council tax rates. B. The surrounding area is predominantly residential in character, and Dudley Road itself comprises two storey semi-detached family dwelling houses. Number 9 itself is not Listed and does not lie within a Conservation Area. However, it does lie adjacent to the boundary with the Fairfield Conservation Area immediately to the North.
Planning history
1. The relevant planning history of the site is summarised in the table below:
Planning Reference Description Decision
13/13026/PNO Prior Notification of Proposed Change Withdrawn of Use from Class B1a (Offices) to 22/01/2014 Class C3 (Residential Dwelling) 00/03399/FUL Retention of use of premises as a Refused 08/11/2000 booking office for private hire vehicles and retention of radio aerial
E2 2. The breach of planning control consists of the use of the premises in a mixed residential and business use (C3/B1). The unit is currently occupied by persons employed in the roofing trade. The yard in front of the building is used for the storage of a number of materials in associated with this roofing business. However, the unit itself, whilst in the past was used as an office, is also fitted out and used as residential accommodation for these persons (understood to be no more than 2). 3. As well as toilet, shower and other facilities, bedding, a washing machine and gas hobs were also present within the building on an unannounced visit in April 2014. 4. Photographs of the inside and outside of the site taken at this time are provided in ANNEX 1 at the end of this report 5. The owner was informed that the use of the site in this mixed use (best described as a live/work unit) required planning permission, however, despite numerous written reminders, at the time of writing this has not been submitted.
Planning Considerations
Impact on the Character and Appearance of the surrounding area
6. Policies CS8, DM10 and DM11 of the Core Strategy state that developments will be required to incorporate principles of good design, and that the Council will resist any development that detrimentally affects the quality of the environment. 7. The change of use from B1 to a mixed B1/C3 use class (or live/work unit) has not resulted in any material external changes – the various building materials/skips located to the front of the yard, whilst not aesthetically contributing to the area, form part of the lawful use class and thus are to be expected. No conflict with the above policies is therefore identified.
Impact on the amenities of neighbouring residents.
8. Policy DM10 (k) of the Core Strategy states that developments should have regard to the amenities of occupants and neighbours, including in terms of privacy, outlook, sunlight/daylight, avoidance of visual intrusion and noise and disturbance. 9. Similarly, Policy 7.15 of the London Plan states that development proposals should seek to reduce noise by minimising the existing and potential adverse impacts of noise on, from, within, or in the vicinity of, development proposals. 10. All available evidence points to the site having lawful use as a B1 business premises, and therefore it would be permitted to be used as an office, for research and development of products or for light industry. As such, business activity, including the storage and movement of building materials, and the coming and going of employees and vehicles is to be expected at this site (albeit on a small scale). 11. However, it is expected that were this premises to remain solely in a business type use, that activity in and around this site would occur during standard business hours (eg Monday – Friday, 8am-6pm). The addition of the new residential use/element means that the site would be occupied constantly (ie outside normal business hours). 12. In the absence of a planning application for this site, no planning conditions can be imposed. As such, the type of operations, and the times in which they occur, are E3 uncontrolled. Operation of the roofing business at sensitive hours of the day/night would lead to notable harm to nearby residents along Dudley Road and Fairfield South in terms of noise and disturbance. 13. Similarly, there are first and ground floor windows located along the southern flank of the building, directly along the boundary with number 11. While these are predominantly obscure glazed – parts can be opened and thus can provide direct views into the garden area of number 11. Additionally, there are double doors on the first floor which provide access to the roof. If accessed by occupiers, this roof (terrace) area would provide direct views into neighbouring gardens along Fairfield South and Dudley Road. The likelihood of loss of privacy through the above during non-working hours is also increased by this new residential aspect.
Impact on parking pressures and highway safety
14. As noted previously, the site has a lawful use falling within B1. As such, it is expected that vehicular movements to and from the site would result from the lawful of the site use (predominantly from vans transporting materials to and from the site). 15. It is possible that there may be some additional journeys to and from the site from the occupant outside working hours. However, it is noted that this part of Dudley road is subject to waiting restrictions (single yellow lines) and has designated residents parking bays which would prevent on street parking at peak times, and so it is not considered that this mixed use would have any notable adverse impacts on parking pressures or highway safety. As such, no conflict with planning policies relating to parking and highway safety are identified.
Recommendation
16. Given the assessment above, it is considered that, in the absence of a planning application, the (unregulated) development causes harm to the amenities of adjoining residents in terms of loss of privacy, noise and disturbance, in conflict with Policy DM10(k) of the Core Strategy. 17. It is possible that, through the submission of a planning application, the issues raised in the above sections may be resolved. However, in the absence of this, the unauthorised use is considered unacceptable and so authority is requested to take enforcement action to secure the cessation of this (mixed) use.
Timescale for compliance
18. Section 173(9) of the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act (as amended) requires that an enforcement notice shall specify the period at the end of which any steps are required to have been taken or any activities are required to have ceased. Ground (g), as set out in section 174(2) of the aforementioned Act, provides that an appeal may be made if it is considered that any period specified “falls short of what should reasonably be allowed” 19. The suggested period for compliance is to be within three months of the Enforcement Notice taking effect. This time period is considered reasonable for the steps in the Notice to be completed.
Reasons for issuing the notice E4
20. The unauthorised use causes disturbance to nearby occupiers in terms of loss of privacy, noise and disturbance. It therefore conflicts with DM10(k) of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (Adopted April 2012) and Policy 7.15 of the 2011 London Plan (as amended).
Background papers – held by Paul Young (author of report) [email protected] 0208 547 5309
List of reports/documents
• Enforcement File ref EN/13898
E5
ANNEX 1 – Internal/external photos of site (April 2014)
E6
F1 Appendix F Kingston Town Neighbourhood Committee 10 September 2014 Enforcement: Unit 10, Hampden Road, Kingston, KT1 3LG Report by Director of Place
Purpose To obtain authority to issue Enforcement Notice(s) with the aim of removing the identified breaches of planning control at the site. Recommendations To RESOLVE that the Corporate Solicitor and the Interim Head of Planning and Transport be authorised to: 1. issue an Enforcement Notice (s) under S. 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), 2. withdraw and to vary such notice (s) under S. 173A, 3. in the event of non-compliance, take action (s) by way of prosecution under S. 179, S.187A and/or direct action under S. 178 of the Act in respect of the breach of planning control/or for injunctive relief under S.187B.
Site and surroundings
A. This report concerns Unit 10 Hampden Road and an area of open yard which lies to the south of this unit. Unit 10 comprises a large detached warehouse building, located within the Cambridge Road/Hampden Road industrial estate. Unit 10, and part of the open yard to the south, is currently occupied by Chase Metals, a scrap metal merchant (within the ‘Sui Generis’ planning use class). B. The unit lies within the designated Cambridge Road/Hampden Road locally significant industrial site (LSIS). Immediately to the west of the building lie a number of two storey residential properties which front onto Hampden Road, whilst immediately to the east of the site lie a number of three storey residential flatted buildings (Maple Court, Willow Court and Lime Court). Planning permission was granted in 2013 for side and roof extensions to Willow Court to provide an additional 6 flats to this development. To the south of the industrial estate lies the boundary with Kingsmeadow football/athletics ground.
Planning history
2. The breach of planning control consists of the change of use of the site to a Scrap Metal Merchant facility. This use, whilst industrial in nature, does not fall within a standard industrial use class (B1, B2 or B8). Instead, it falls within the Sui Generis use class, to which there is no permitted change (under the Use Classes Order) without planning permission. 3. In July 2014 a Planning Contravention Notice (PCN) was served upon the occupiers (Chase Metals). This is essentially a compulsory questionnaire to which it is an Offence to provide false or deliberately misleading answers. This was served to gain reliable and detailed into the operations occurring at the site. The occupiers F2 also visually demonstrated how the business operates following a site visit by an Enforcement Officer, also in July 2014. 4. It is stated in this response that Chase Metals began the use in December 2009. It is also stated that there are currently 5 full time employees, and that the use, save for in exceptional circumstances, operates Monday to Friday between 8am – 5pm and on Saturdays between 8am until 12:30pm. 5. It is stated that customers (general public, schools, health organisations) arrive via vehicle (around 98%), register (with ID) within Unit 10 itself, and then have their metals weighed and valued before payment is issued (electronically). This metal is then sorted, with some cutting of certain tubing in addition to angle grinding. A forklift is also used to move metal or load vans/HGVs operated by Chase Metals. These metals are then transported and sold by Chase Metals to two other merchants in south west London. It states that this results in approximately 6 HGV movements by Chase metals on a standard weekday (though this would not include vehicular movements to and from the site by customers). 6. Photographs of the site taken in July are present in ANNEX 1 at the end of this report. 7. Following the receipt of the PCN response, Chase Metals were informed that the use at the site required planning permission, however it was indicated that an application for this use would likely be unsuccessful due to the reasons set out in the following section. As such, a retrospective planning application was not invited in this case. Instead, it was advised that the owner consider potential mitigation measures or a revision in their business operations to try and resolve the noise issues (as discussed in the following section).
Planning Considerations
Principle of development
8. The site in question lies within the designated Cambridge Road/Hampden Road locally significant industrial site (LSIS). 9. Policy DM17 (Protecting Existing Employment Land and Premises) state that together with the Strategic Industrial Locations (SILs), the LSISs form the main supply of industrial/business land and will be protected for B1, B2 and B8 uses and other uses of an industrial and employment nature (excluding retail). 10. Whilst the use as a scrap metal merchant falls outside the B1, B2 or B8 uses, it is by nature industrial, and as such, the principle of the use is not considered to conflict with planning policy.
Impacts on the character and appearance of the surrounding area
11. The site is characterised by open storage of scrap metals and other items, in addition to basic machinery. It therefore has an untidy appearance and does little to enhance the aesthetics of the area. Nonetheless, it is a designated industrial unit and yard, and so the presence of machinery, and the open storage of materials is not out of character with the area and its designation. Additionally, it is noted that the site could be used for an alternative form of ‘open storage’ (within the B8 storage and distribution use class) without the need for permission. 12. As such, no conflict with the aforementioned policies is identified in this case. F3
Impact on the amenities of neighbouring residents.
13. Policy DM10 (k) of the Core Strategy states that developments should have regard to the amenities of occupants and neighbours, including in terms of privacy, outlook, sunlight/daylight, avoidance of visual intrusion and noise and disturbance. 14. Similarly, Policy 7.15 of the London Plan states that development proposals should seek to reduce noise by minimising the existing and potential adverse impacts of noise on, from, within, or in the vicinity of, development proposals. 15. When assessing planning applications which can involve the creation of noise or disturbance close to nearby residential occupiers, it is common to attach to any planning consent the following condition: “The rating level of the noise determined by the cumulative sound emissions of the development hereby permitted shall be at least 5dBA lower than the existing background noise level at any given time of operation. The noise levels shall be determined at any point externally to any window at the nearest residential façade. Measurements and assessment shall be carried out in accordance with British Standard 4142:1997.” 16. In addition to planning enforcement, the environmental health (EH) department have also been investigating potential noise disturbance emanating from the site. At the time of writing, the Principle Pollution Control Officer (EH department) had undertaken visits to nearby residential properties to assess the noise impacts of the particular use. He had also visited the site and informed Chase Metals that he had a number of concerns and would be undertaking noise monitoring over the coming weeks. 17. As indicated previously, the current operations, consisting of loading/unloading, sorting and vehicular transportation, are based largely outdoors in the yard. It is considered by both environmental health and planning departments that this makes realistic noise attenuation/mitigation near impossible. Indeed, the very nature of the business is such that loud crashing and clanging noises in loading, sorting and weighing metals is unavoidable. Clearly, adopting practices whereby these metals are carefully placed and loaded would mitigate some of this harm. However, enforcing a suitably worded planning condition to control this would be almost impossible. 18. Likewise, the business model is based around customers arriving and leaving unannounced – and therefore the movements from these cannot realistically be controlled, reduced or enforced via planning condition(s). 19. Indeed, in terms of disturbance from vehicular activities, it is stated in the PCN response that there are approximately 6 HGV movements per day resulting from the collection of sorted metals from customers and their transportation to other merchants off site. This is not considered particularly high in itself. However, records of the numbers of customers visiting the site have also been provided. It is indicated that on a sample week (Mon-Sat) in June, 172 customers visited Chase metals. It is also stated that approximately 98% of these visits were vehicular. Assuming that 98% of customers arrived and left via vehicle (2 trips), this equates to approximately 56 vehicular trips to and from the site from customers on average every day (62 in total when adding in the HGV movements). 20. It is considered that 62 trips per day is significant, and contributes to the disturbance felt by nearby occupiers – particularly those closest to the site in Maple Court, Willow Court and Lime Court, and those close to the vehicular entrance (in Hampden road). Whilst there is vehicular activity generated from a number of the other surrounding units, the nature of these businesses are such that would not F4 attract such high frequency of movements to and from the site (Units 9, 9a and 9b are vehicular repair businesses whilst unit 7 nearby is a joinery workshop). 21. Additionally, these figures also give an indication of the volume of metal which is sold, sorted and loaded/unloaded at the site. The provided figures indicate around 28 customers on average arrive per day with scrap metals/items which are subsequently unloaded, weighed, sorted, and re-loaded into HGVs by Chase Metals for transport to the two other south west London sites. These figures suggest a high volume and intensity of activity, resulting in consistent high noise disturbance to nearby occupiers. 22. Given the above, it is considered that the current operations conflict with adopted planning policies, and that these conflicts cannot obviously be resolved through the imposition of planning conditions. As such, it is concluded that there is no merit in inviting a planning application for the use as it is currently operating. 23. Nonetheless, the operator (Chase Metals) is within their rights to submit a planning application which proposes measures (such as a revised business model or operating procedure) which attempts to address the concerns raised in this report.
Recommendation
24. Given the assessment above, it is considered that the unauthorised use of the site as a scrap metal merchant results in unacceptable harm to the amenities of neighbouring properties in terms of noise disturbance in conflict with adopted planning policies. 25. It is therefore recommended that authority be granted to serve an enforcement Notice requiring the cessation of this use and the removal of all associated metals, machinery, vehicles and associated materials from the site.
Timescale for compliance
26. Section 173(9) of the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act (as amended) requires that an enforcement notice shall specify the period at the end of which any steps are required to have been taken or any activities are required to have ceased. Ground (g), as set out in section 174(2) of the aforementioned Act, provides that an appeal may be made if it is considered that any period specified “falls short of what should reasonably be allowed” 27. In determining a suitable compliance period, consideration must therefore be given to the time it will take to cease this business (and potentially relocate to another site) whilst weighing this against the harm the use is causing to residential amenities. 28. Taking all of the above into consideration, the suggested period for compliance is to be within three months of the Enforcement Notice taking effect.
Reasons for issuing the notice
29. The unauthorised use of the site as a scrap metal merchant unacceptable harm to the amenities of neighbouring properties in terms of noise disturbance. It therefore conflicts with DM10(k) of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2012) and Policy 7.15 of the London Plan (2011). F5
Background papers – held by Paul Young (author of report) [email protected] 0208 547 5309
List of reports/documents
• Enforcement File ref EN/13908
F6
ANNEX 1 – Photographs of Unit 10 and Yard
F7
F8
G1 Appendix G Kingston Town Neighbourhood Committee 10 September 2014 Results of Consultation on Eagle Brewery Wharf Events Management Plan
Report by Neighbourhood Manager
Purpose To Receive the results of the Consultation on Eagle Brewery Wharf Events Management Plan Recommendations 1. To note the results of the Consultation, and 2. To RESOLVE that a) Points 5 and 8 of the ‘Special Points to Consider at Eagle Brewery Wharf’ from the Event Management Plan be reviewed in the light of the Consultation responses and the special circumstances of Eagle Brewery Wharf and, in particular, its proximity to local residences; and b) Review the Event Management Plan in the light of the results of this Consultation to ensure Event Organisers’ compliance to safeguard local residents’ and businesses against any Anti Social Behaviour issues during organised events
Key Points
A. The design scheme for Eagle Brewery Wharf was agreed by Kingston Town Neighbourhood Committee in February 2009. One of the aspirations of the scheme was to make it capable of hosting occasional outdoor public performances. B. There have been local resident complaints after two events and the Committee are invited to review the Event Management Plan in the light of the Consultation results. Context 1. Eagle Brewery Wharf is a Council owned public space located on Kingston’s Thames riverside. At its meeting on 10 February 2009 and the subsequent meeting on 22 April 2009, the Kingston Town Neighbourhood Committee approved the design scheme to enhance Eagle Brewery Wharf and noted the Eagle Brewery Wharf Event Management Plan. 2. Uniquely in this Borough, Eagle Brewery Wharf is a public open space which encourages outdoor events but is in very close proximity to residences with three properties abutting the open space. 3. Successful, complaint-free performances have taken place, certainly during the River Festival. Trad jazz, folk, Capoeira, Korean Romeo & Juliet and the Surbiton Royal British Legion Youth Marching Band (albeit in a static display) are examples of acts that have been well-received by local people and riverside passers-by, including families, who have stopped to watch performances. Additionally, face painting, craft workshops and mobile entertainment have enhanced events at Eagle Brewery Wharf and enjoyed good public support & engagement.
G2
4. However, less successful have been some ‘rock’ bands who rely on substantial amplification during their performances and, while they have drawn audiences, they have been the main cause of noise complaints. 5. As a result of complaints from local residents after events in the past two years, the Kingston Town Neighbourhood Committee on 5 February 2014 was asked to agree go to local consultation on the Event Management Plan, report back to Committee on the consultation responses with a view to amending the Plan in line with the responses, if necessary. 6. The Committee agreed to local consultation on the Eagle Brewery Wharf Event Management Plan with residents and businesses in properties surrounding Eagle Brewery Wharf and event users. 7. A total of 33 Letters ( Annex 1 ) were delivered to each address in the following area (Annex 2 ): bounded by Emms Passage to the north, the River Thames to the west, the passage by Queen’s Reach flats and 42 High Street to the south and High Street to the east. The envelopes were clearly marked ‘Kingston Council Consultation on Eagle Brewery Wharf Event Management Plan’. Where local email contacts were known, they were contacted to enhance local awareness of the consultation. These delivery addresses comprised 5 boats, 12 Queens Reach residences, 16 local businesses. The Managing Agents of the business premises 39-46 High Street were emailed along with known Event Organisers The Rose Theatre, Kingstonfirst, International Youth Arts Festival and Kingston University.
Consultation Responses 8. There were 40 Consultation Responses, the results of which are analysed in Annex 3. Some of the questions requested respondents’ additional comments and these are also captured. 9. A brief summary of the content of the comments is provided in Annex 4 . 10. It is clear from Consultation responses that two recent events have given rise to complaints have also been commented on by Consultation respondents. 11. Common complaints from the results of the Consultation are as follows: inconsiderate parking, on private land, during events; events giving rise to large volumes of litter; at the conclusion of organised events, the crowds have not dispersed but have carried on with loud noise & music; and, lack of stewards at events, their inaction and conduct and their failure to disperse the event crowd on its conclusion. Resource Implications 12. There are no resource implications to this Report. Environmental Implications 13. Event management strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Event Management Plan to ensure outdoor public performances while respecting residents’ quiet enjoyment of their property and eradicate other anti-social behaviour issues highlighted in the Consultation results.
G3
Background papers – held by author
Author of report – Neville Rainford, [email protected] , Tel 020 8547 4625.
List of reports/documents
Report to Kingston Town Neighbourhood Committee 10 February 2009 Report to Kingston Town Neighbourhood Committee 22 April 2009 including the Event Management Plan Report to Kingston Town Neighbourhood Committee 5 February 2014
Annex 1 Letter to Residents and Businesses Annex 2 Consultation Delivery Area Annex 3 Consultation Response Analysis and Comments Annex 4 Summary of Consultation Responses Annex 5 Eagle Brewery Wharf Event Management Plan G4 Strategic Business Capability Lead - Community Gary Walsh
Guildhall Kingston upon Thames KT1 1EU
Residents & Businesses Adjacent to Eagle Brewery Wharf Enquiries to: Neville Rainford E-mail: [email protected] Direct Line: 020 8547 4625
27th June 2014 Dear Sir / Madam,
Kingston Town Neighbourhood Committee has agreed to consult residents and businesses in properties surrounding Eagle Brewery Wharf on the Event Management Plan (available at: http://www.kingston.gov.uk/consultations ) with the view of updating it to reflect your views.
The purpose of this letter is to invite you to complete an online survey on the Eagle Brewery Wharf Event Management Plan. Whilst this is a lengthy document, I feel that the matters of Event Management that will be of most interest to you are to be found on the 2 nd page of the Plan.
Paper copies of the survey and the Plan are available on request. All requests should be directed to Seema Sehgal (email: [email protected] or tel: 0208 547 4652) or Neville Rainford (email: [email protected] or tel: 0208 547 4625).
This consultation is important to give local residents an opportunity to make their views known to the Neighbourhood Committee, to inform the Committee in their review of the Event Management Plan at the September 10 th Neighbourhood Committee at the Guildhall.
We are looking forward to receiving your responses by no later than Sunday 20 th July 2014 . The survey will be closed following this date. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any queries. Your views are important to us.
Yours faithfully,
Neville Rainford Neighbourhood Manager
Kingston Town Neighbourhood
If this letter is not clear, please post it to: FREEPOST RBK BETTER LETTERS or ring 020 8547 5757 Printed on 100% Recycled Paper
G5
Annexe 2 Eagle Wharf Event Management Plan Consultation, Consultation Delivery Area
Th e C ree Garricks House k
1 to 110 G
Clattern House
W A D MoP B R O O K 12
S 4 T 1 R 18 E N E 6 GP T 1
T E E R T S R TCB H
i v IG e PH H
r
s
i
d
e
W E
a 6.8m
l Ea k gle H ous P e o
0
3 1 l 3 ic R e am Pa S ssage ta t io n PH
34
1 7
Bank
8
3
1
9
t
o
2 0 3 4
6 4
o t
2 4
8
4
Consultation Area The Malthouse
2 ± 5
1:750
2
5
t
05 10 20 Meters o
2
Publication date: 21/08/2014 Operator: TL 9 Produced by the GIS Team, ICT Guildhall 1, Kingston upon Thames, KT1 1EU © Crown copyright. All rights reserved. The Royal Borough of Kingston. Licence No. 100019285 (2014). File: Eagle Brewery Wharf Events Management Plan Kingston Town A4P.mxd NPs G6
Eagle Brewery Wharf Events Management Plan Consultation
1. How satisfied are you with the overall look of Eagle Brewery Wharf?
Neither Very satisfied Very Rating Rating Satisfied Dissatisfied satisfied nor dissatisfied Average Count dissatisfied
31.7% 9.8% (4) 9.8% (4) 12.2% (5) 36.6% (15) 2.66 (13)
answered question
skipped question
2. How frequent do you pass/visit Eagle Brewery Wharf?
Response Response
Percent Count
More than 3 times a week 68.3% 28
Once a week 24.4% 10
Once a month 7.3% 3
Only on special occasions 0.0% 0
answered question 41
skipped question 0
3. Have you experienced any events at Eagle Brewery Wharf?
Response Response
Percent Count
Yes 92.7% 38
No 7.3% 3
answered question 41
skipped question 0
1 of 18 G7
4. Do you have any complaints or comments about events being held at Eagle Brewery Wharf?
Response
Count
2
answered question 2
skipped question 39
5. Which events have you experienced at Eagle Brewery Wharf? (Tick as many as apply)
Response Response
Percent Count
River Celebration 87.9% 29
IYAF (International Youth Arts 93.9% 31 Festival)
Other (please specify) or if you aren't sure, provide an approximate 39.4% 13 date:
answered question 33
skipped question 8
6. As far as you can remember, which events caused you disturbance? (Choose as many as relevant)
Response Response
Percent Count
River Celebration 32.0% 8
IYAF (International Youth Arts 56.0% 14 Festival)
Other (please specify) 52.0% 13
answered question 25
skipped question 16
2 of 18 G8
7. What kind of disturbance did you experience from the events?
Response Response
Percent Count
Loud music 69.2% 18
Loud crowd noise 42.3% 11
Felt intimidated by event 50.0% 13 attendance attitudes
Other (please specify) 69.2% 18
answered question 26
skipped question 15
8. Were you aware of the existence of Eagle Brewery Wharf Events Management Plan?
Response Response
Percent Count
Yes 48.6% 18
No 51.4% 19
answered question 37
skipped question 4
3 of 18 G9
9. To what extent do you agree that the following objectives of the Eagle Brewery Wharf Events Management Plan have been successfully implemented?
Strongly Strongly Rating Agree Neither Disagree agree disagree Count
Movement of equipment and material required for events should 37.5% (12) 28.1% (9) 21.9% (7) 9.4% (3) 3.1% (1) 32 cause minimum disturbance to neighbours
Event organisers must take all reasonable steps to ensure events 40.6% (13) 25.0% (8) 0.0% (0) 6.3% (2) 28.1% (9) 32 do not become a nuisance to the residents
Events taking place at Eagle Brewery Wharf should have community or educational value e.g. Rose Theatre education or "platform" performances, children's 21.9% (7) 18.8% (6) 28.1% (9) 25.0% (8) 6.3% (2) 32 events linked to May Merrie, regattas, river festivals, university school of music student performances.
Loud amplified music will not be allowed. As a general rule acoustic 21.9% (7) 15.6% (5) 6.3% (2) 31.3% (10) 25.0% (8) 32 based music such as folk, classical, jazz will be allowed
Most events will be carried out during daytime/early evening and 31.3% (10) 25.0% (8) 9.4% (3) 15.6% (5) 18.8% (6) 32 must finish no later than 10pm
answered question 32
skipped question 9
4 of 18 G10
10. Are there any missing objectives?
Response Response
Percent Count
Yes 68.8% 22
No 31.3% 10
If yes, what do you think is missing? 22
answered question 32
skipped question 9
11. How could we ensure future events do not become a nuisance to neighbours?
Response
Count
27
answered question 27
skipped question 14
5 of 18 G11
Page 3, Q4. Do you have any complaints or comments about events being held at Eagle Brewery Wharf?
1 No, I think it is a fantastic public space and shouldn't be limited in use. Jul 11, 2014 8:13 AM
2 I don't think there's so much of a problem with day time events, eg linking up Jul 10, 2014 4:29 PM with the regatta. However, I do have some sympathies with the residents; yes, it's public space, but I doubt it was ever intended to accomodate large numbers of people. In addition, I have walked past in the early mornings and the rubbish left has to be seen to be believed! I know the council did try to clear up and have provided about a dozen large shiny rubbish bins. Very decorative, they complement the red tarmac and black benches.
6 of 18 G12
Page 4, Q5. Which events have you experienced at Eagle Brewery Wharf? (Tick as many as apply)
1 I see them all. Jul 25, 2014 3:27 PM
2 Any date. I live on top of it. Jul 20, 2014 12:17 PM
3 All events as reside and work next to Eagle Brewery Wharf Jul 16, 2014 2:22 PM
4 Small performances throughout the summer of 2013, including a small music Jul 16, 2014 10:49 AM festival in which a two or three band performed at Egle Brewery Wharf. I'm not 100% sure of the date I'm reasonable sure it took place in September 2013.
5 putty golf Jul 15, 2014 9:55 PM
6 Impromptu events organised by young people on a flash crowd basis, with Jul 11, 2014 10:17 PM hand portable speakers and mikes.
7 Bread golf Jul 11, 2014 5:07 PM
8 Seething Community bread golf open. Jul 11, 2014 9:22 AM
9 Bread Golf Open Jul 10, 2014 10:03 PM
10 Kingston University drame Jul 10, 2014 8:00 PM
11 Bread Golf, Animate Kingston Jul 10, 2014 2:14 PM
12 Cycling cinema Jul 10, 2014 2:06 PM
13 Not an event as such, but uncontrolled drinking and music (boom boxes) Jun 30, 2014 9:25 PM from visitors to the area!
7 of 18 G13
Page 4, Q6. As far as you can remember, which events caused you disturbance? (Choose as many as relevant)
1 No events apart from loud 'pop' music at times, as i live on the corner of Jul 25, 2014 3:27 PM Queens Reach I get the bulk of it.
2 All events cause disturbance due to lack of toilet facilities therefore they Jul 16, 2014 2:22 PM urinate in our private car park
3 Small performances throughout the summer of 2013, including a small music Jul 16, 2014 10:49 AM festival in which a two or three band performed at Egle Brewery Wharf. I'm not 100% sure of the date I'm reasonable sure it took place in September 2013.
4 unable to specifically remember Jul 15, 2014 9:55 PM
5 none Jul 11, 2014 9:22 AM
6 none Jul 10, 2014 11:32 PM
7 None Jul 10, 2014 10:20 PM
8 none Jul 10, 2014 10:06 PM
9 late night drinking - not related to any particular festival events Jul 10, 2014 9:53 PM
10 When events not happening and in warm weather groups of people gather Jul 10, 2014 9:28 PM drinking alcohol brought to the location
11 None Jul 10, 2014 8:00 PM
12 I was not disturbed by any of the events Jul 10, 2014 8:00 PM
13 I am more than happy with planned events, what I am most outraged about Jun 30, 2014 9:25 PM is uncontrolled skate boarding, drinking and late night parties with music that take place in this area. No one seems to want to take responsibility for this and I have many nights where I am regularly woken at 2, 3,4 am by revellers, some who have been threatening when asked politely to calm down or move on.
8 of 18 G14
9 of 18 G15
Page 4, Q7. What kind of disturbance did you experience from the events?
1 Urinating in car park Jul 20, 2014 11:14 PM
2 Late night noise Jul 20, 2014 3:57 PM
3 The music was so loud that I couldn't hear what the person next to me was Jul 20, 2014 12:17 PM saying. At one event, the loud bass beat of the music went on virtually the whole weekend and I could not relax or read a book because of it.
4 All events cause disturbance due to lack of toilet facilities therefore they Jul 16, 2014 2:22 PM urinate in our private car park
5 I am a resident of Queens Reach and during events attendees cause a Jul 16, 2014 10:49 AM number of issues for me and other residents. Firstly, car parking is a huge issue. People attending these events seem to assume that they are entitled to park freely in Ram Passage, despite the fact it is private property. The problem has been so severe in the past that I have not been able to move my car from the private Queens Reach residents car park because the entrance/exit has been blocked by the vehicles of non-residents. It is very frustrating that nobody is ever on hand to inform drivers that it a "no parking" area. Secondly, during the events (especially from late afternoon onwards), attendees use the Queens Reach car park as a public lavatory. On numerous occasions, I have witnessed people urinating against the bins and next to the residents’ cars. On more than one occasion, I have even witnessed event goers urinate in the main doorway before walking back to join the festivities. Again, I have never seen any stewards trying to stop this behaviour. Thirdly, after the events have officially finished, many attendees remain in Eagle Brewery Wharf and often play loud music (sometimes until the early hours of the morning), sit around drinking alcohol and then leave their rubbish behind. While I feel the events can be beneficial for the local community, I feel that the organisers should certainly take more responsibility for the wider issues they cause local residents.
6 antisocial behaviour, people trying to enter my property Jul 15, 2014 9:55 PM
7 PEOPLE URINATING IN OUR CAR PARK Jul 12, 2014 11:56 AM
8 Openly stated contempt for local residents stated by one organiser and by Jul 11, 2014 10:17 PM one councillor
9 none Jul 11, 2014 9:22 AM
10 none Jul 10, 2014 11:32 PM
11 None Jul 10, 2014 10:20 PM
12 none Jul 10, 2014 10:06 PM
13 youth drinking and playing portable players long after organised events had Jul 10, 2014 9:53 PM finished
14 Intimidated by drunks but not when events occurring Jul 10, 2014 9:28 PM
15 Some drunk bypassers Jul 10, 2014 8:00 PM
16 I enjoyed all the events I have attended - they mast the most of a Jul 10, 2014 8:00 PM disappointing space and seemed to be enjoyed by most people
17 The attitude of stewards has been appalling at at least one event. Jul 5, 2014 4:41 PM
10 of 18 G16
Page 4, Q7. What kind of disturbance did you experience from the events?
18 Again, I do not object to planned, managed events. Jun 30, 2014 9:25 PM
11 of 18 G17
12 of 18 G18
Page 6, Q10. Are there any missing objectives?
1 During the evening performances there are no signs or any stewards after Jul 25, 2014 3:30 PM 10pm.
2 Crowd dispersal after the event Events must be monitored. No monitoring Jul 20, 2014 9:30 PM takes place or, if there is monitoring, the people doing it are not paying regard to the rules.
3 People should not drop litter, usually beer cans, bottles, plastic cups and Jul 20, 2014 9:18 PM sandwich containers and his should include chewing gum and cigarette butts. The objective should introduce fines for litter dropping.
4 Site should be safe, peaceful and not intimidating on all nights, not just event Jul 20, 2014 4:15 PM nights.
5 Crowds must be dispursed at end of event. Security to stay until this has Jul 20, 2014 4:01 PM been done.
6 Toilet facilities need to be provided/dealt with as the pubs cannot cope with Jul 16, 2014 2:35 PM the demand. The crowds need to be cleared after the events.
7 The Event Management Plan states: Ram Passage "must not be used by Jul 16, 2014 11:07 AM vehicles associated with events or indeed the public in general". However, while this objective is imperative for Queens Reach residents, it is not enforced. On numerous occasions, members of the public attending the events have parked in Ram Passage and blocked the entrance/exit to Queens Reach. The Event Management Plan states events must still allow residents "quiet enjoyment of their property". This is certainly not being implemented. Having event goers remain in Eagle Brewery Wharf playing music until the early hours does not allow for "quiet enjoyment". The Event Management Plan states that organisers must "Ensure stewards monitor and direct visitors to the designated toilet facilities". This is not being implemented. Event goers are simply left to urinate in the Queens Reach residents' car park, against the bins, cars and even the doorway of the property.
8 Event organisers must take responsibility for ensuring that the site is left tidy Jul 15, 2014 10:04 PM and clean
9 CROWD CONTROL,CROWDS STAY LONG AFTER EVENTS HAVE Jul 12, 2014 12:04 PM FINNISHED,SALE OF ALCHOHOL AFTER CERTAIN TIMES,NO PUBLIC TOILET FACILITIES
10 Events must be supervised and controlled properly. Sometimes loud Jul 11, 2014 10:24 PM amplified music is put on between live music events. Further, the amount of rubbish is unbelievable and must somehow be controlled.
11 A more neutral poll would be benefial to see a true outcome Jul 11, 2014 5:13 PM
12 This is a valueable events space beside the Thames and has provided a Jul 11, 2014 9:38 AM much used community asset. It should be retained as a space used to promote live performance, community events, the arts etc.
13 The number of complainants and the effect of their complaints have favoured Jul 10, 2014 11:36 PM them disproportionately. The people who enjoy outdoor entertainment have no voice
14 A more positive attitude and support from residents, The Council and the Jul 10, 2014 9:59 PM Police - Outdoor Music Festivals play a major part in most UK towns summer
13 of 18 G19
Page 6, Q10. Are there any missing objectives?
celebrations.
15 Community and artistic events should be encouraged Jul 10, 2014 9:30 PM
16 As a virtually unused public space I think the management plan should be Jul 10, 2014 8:06 PM encouraging the use of it as a community space
17 This is one of the few public spaces in Kingston and activity should be Jul 10, 2014 8:03 PM encouraged
18 Clearing up after themselves? Jul 10, 2014 4:30 PM
19 Programming a suitable number of marshalled events which will stop the use Jul 10, 2014 2:19 PM of the square as a 'hang out' for disreputable noisy people
20 Event organisers must ensure that litter is cleaned up after the close of play Jul 10, 2014 2:09 PM
21 Stewards must prevent use of courtyard of Queens Reach and surrounds as Jul 5, 2014 4:45 PM a toilet : this has been a major problem. The recycle bins in the courtyard of Queens Reach are not for public use and this must be controlled. Stewards must remain on site until the crowd has dispersed : this is often well beyond events finishing.
22 While I have no issue with managed events that finish at 10 or earlier it is Jun 30, 2014 9:35 PM people who remain in the area after the event is finished - till after midnight, that cause concern. Generally these people have been attracted by the event, bring their own alcohol and after the event and security have left remain and at times are rowdy, out of control and a nuisance to home owners.
14 of 18 G20
15 of 18 G21
Page 6, Q11. How could we ensure future events do not become a nuisance to neighbours?
1 Stop all alcohol being drunk in the evenings, the wall opposite my flat is Jul 25, 2014 3:30 PM occupied (in the summer)all day and evening with drinkers-loud ones too. They use the wall on the corner as a GENTS.
2 I'm a resident of Queens Reach and overlook the space above ground level. Jul 20, 2014 11:41 PM Firstly, noise in general has worsened due to idea of holding events in the space because the original plants & shrubbery were removed and mostly turned into hard surfacing. This means there is no longer an effective way of absorbing the increased sound as well as there being a reduced sound barrier. It's quite easy for me to hear ordinary conversations on the ground let alone those that are amplified! I'd say most of the events are too noisy and some sort of sound barrier is required, preferably 'green'. There is also a lack of public toilets in the area, especially for the holding of events and this needs to be addressed, it is often the case that people will urinate in our car park. or in the alleyway adjacent to our flats. I also find larger events intimidating due to the number of people congregating close to our entrance, so I feel these should be held in larger open spaces, away from residential areas.
3 This begs the real question. The formal events are just the tip of the iceberg. Jul 20, 2014 9:30 PM The underlying and very serious disturbance almost every night, from late Spring until Autumn, is the greater nuisance. The formal events are also a nuisance and are particularly irritating because of the flagrant disregard of the acoustic music rule. Most of the IYF music is massively amplified, to the extent that one cannot hold a conversation 50 yards away.
4 1. Make the Events part of a much more comprehensive alteration on how Jul 20, 2014 9:18 PM EBW is used. It needs a sea change. The previous council has created an area which is ugly and unsightly. It now has a reputation as a place for young people to come with their own cheap beer creating huge amounts of litter, cigarette butts and broken glass often thrown on the boats and with additional costs to the tax payer to clear it up. The problems are not contained at Eagle Wharf. They continue in front of Woody's Bar, in the front and along the start or Emms Passage and as far as the beginning of the board walk in front of Charter Quay. One section do the community alone is catered for. The Council has completely disregarded the needs of those of us who live at EBW and families and others who would like to enjoy a pleasant, green garden by the river during the day.
5 It is not the events that are the main problem. Disruptive as they are, at least Jul 20, 2014 4:15 PM they are rare: the constant anti-social behaviour encourage by the design of the site is a far greater concern. Noise, violence, drug taking and urinating/deficating in the area into the early hours night after night is a far greater concern. The regularly disturbed night cause mental and physical health problems, problems with work etc.
6 The events are only a part of the problem. The poor design encourages Jul 20, 2014 4:01 PM groups of anti-social people night after night. Change the design so it is a community area during the day and secure at night.
7 Toilet facilities, no loud music and crowd control and removal after the event. Jul 16, 2014 2:35 PM
8 The key objectives outlined in the Event Management Plan need to be Jul 16, 2014 11:07 AM properly implemented, especially those concerning vehicle access to Ram Passage/Eagle Brewery Wharf, the provision of toilet facilities for event goers, and allowing residents to continue to enjoy "quiet enjoyment" of their property. I would suggest: 1 - Additional and clear steps are taken to prevent unauthorised vehicles accessing Ram Passage/Eagle Brewery Wharf during
16 of 18 G22
Page 6, Q11. How could we ensure future events do not become a nuisance to neighbours?
events, whether this is by stewarding the entrance, or paying for parking attendants to issue tickets to those who don't comply with the rules. All too frequently, members of the public park their cars on the private property and cause major inconvenience for Queens Reach residents. 2 - Provide portaloos for all events and employ stewards to man the entrance to Queens Reach to ensure event goers do not continue to urinate in the Queens Reach residents car park. 3 - Take more responsibility for the fact that events have a wider impact on local residents, even after the official finishing time of the event. To prevent event goers remaining in Eagle Brewery Wharf into the early hours of the morning after events, organisers should have to work with the police to agree and enforce a curfew to protect residents from the all to frequent disturbance.
9 1. Informing residents and business of forthcoming events -to include a Jul 15, 2014 10:04 PM contact point 2. Adhering to the above conditions and if unable to, to terminate the event
10 NO ALCHOLHOL TO BE TAKEN INTO THE PUBLIC SPACES,THIS Jul 12, 2014 12:04 PM SHOULD BE POLICED,PUBLIC TOILETS MADE AVAILABLE..A MUST! POLICE PRESENCE AFTER PUB CLOSING TIMES
11 Strict supervision. Much better training enforced for ALL event staff. Many Jul 11, 2014 10:24 PM seem to have no idea of the rules, especially to do with playing amplified recorded music. Also, it seems that live music (often quite good) is allowed to be played at such an amplified volume that we (literally) cannot hear another person speaking loudly into one's ear on the river front outside the Ram garden. On at least one occasion it was very hard indeed to hear another person even on the far side of Emms Passage.
12 If you choose to live in the town center it's part of your lifestyle and you Jul 11, 2014 5:13 PM should be proud to live in an active neighbourhood.
13 Neighbours of community spaces have to understand that some noise from Jul 11, 2014 9:38 AM events is likely and should be accepted to allow the greater enjoyment of the space. I live near a pub which has live music. The pub was there before I moved in, It would be mean-spirited of me to complain, unless the noise was excessive and at antisocial hours
14 The public space does not belong to a handful of residents in the area. This Jul 11, 2014 8:16 AM is a great PUBLIC space and should be continued to be utilised as such. An event will bring extra noise with it, but this should also be seen against a backdrop of all the other positive things such events bring and the added value that it adds to the community.
15 Soundproof the neighbouring residences. Give them a discount on their Jul 10, 2014 11:36 PM rates.
16 Neighbours should accept they live in a town centre. Summer events happen Jul 10, 2014 10:22 PM everywhere
17 Remind residents that they bought property built next to a long-established Jul 10, 2014 10:16 PM pub with a large, outdoor area, in the middle of town. I don't think that specifying the musical genre is the answer and amplification is essential outdoors. Maybe specify the decibel level or direction of speakers? The document covers most areas for event management. Should those applying cite previous successful events which they have delivered?
18 A little Police presence and co-operation would help. For example - Plenty of Jul 10, 2014 9:59 PM
17 of 18 G23
Page 6, Q11. How could we ensure future events do not become a nuisance to neighbours?
Police are on duty at finish of Hampton Court Outdoor Concerts and those audiences not likely to be trouble.
19 Consultation with an event lead team and advise residents what's happening Jul 10, 2014 9:30 PM
20 To make sure the neighbours are given plenty of notice when events are Jul 10, 2014 8:06 PM happening and to assure them if the events will finish at the time agreed.
21 Ensure neighbours understand they are living next to a public space Jul 10, 2014 8:03 PM
22 Earlier finish time. Jul 10, 2014 4:30 PM
23 Allow both positive and negative views be heard so as not to stop the Jul 10, 2014 2:19 PM excellent and un-disruptive events that the majority enjoy.
24 Not be put off by one miserable person complaining multiple times. Jul 10, 2014 2:09 PM
25 The key issue is to ensure compliance with stipulations in the Event Jul 5, 2014 4:45 PM Management Plan. RBK must take responsibility for checking this at each event. Feedback should be sought from resident and business representatives after each event. The continued use of EBW for public events should be reviewed annually by the KTNC as if significant problems persist it is totally unreasonable to expect residents to endure these.
26 Security to remain in place until after midnight, not leave when there is still a Jun 30, 2014 9:35 PM crown evident.
27 would say noise control,is the only issue many performancesuse amplified Jun 28, 2014 6:22 PM sounds and this will often be louder than is needed
18 of 18 G24 Annex 4
Of the comments made by respondents to open ended questions 9 comments supported the use of the space:
‘I was not disturbed by any of the events’
‘This is a valuable events space beside the Thames and has provided a much used community asset. It should be retained as a space used to promote live performance, community events, the arts etc.’
‘As a virtually unused public space I think the management plan should be encouraging the use of it as a community space.’
3 respondents advised:
‘I don't think there's so much of a problem with day time events, eg. linking up with the regatta. However, I do have some sympathies with the residents; yes, it's public space, but I doubt it was ever intended to accommodate large numbers of people. In addition, I have walked past in the early mornings and the rubbish left has to be seen to be believed! I know the council did try to clear up and have provided about a dozen large shiny rubbish bins. Very decorative, they complement the red tarmac and black benches.’
‘While I have no issue with managed events that finish at 10 or earlier it is people who remain in the area after the event is finished - till after midnight, that cause concern. Generally these people have been attracted by the event, bring their own alcohol and after the event and security have left remain and at times are rowdy, out of control and a nuisance to home owners.’
‘Am more than happy with planned events, what I am most outraged about is uncontrolled skate boarding, drinking and late night parties with music that take place in this area. No one seems to want to take responsibility for this.’
The following themes were repeatedly highlighted in the remainder of responses and appear to be the main causes for concern.
Comment/Concern Number of times mentioned in responses Litter 6 Loud noise/music 8 Late night drinking 9 Lack of toilet facilities/urinating in public 9 People parking in no parking areas 2 Lack of stewards during or after event /poor 6 attitude of stewards
Respondents advised:
‘During the evening performances there are no signs or any stewards after 10pm.’
‘Toilet facilities need to be provided/dealt with as the pubs cannot cope with the demand. The crowds need to be cleared after the events.’
‘Youth drinking and playing portable players long after organised events had finished’
G25
‘It is not the events that are the main problem. Disruptive as they are, at least they are rare: the constant anti-social behaviour encourage by the design of the site is a far greater concern. Noise, violence, drug taking and urinating/defecating in the area into the early hours night after night is a far greater concern. The regularly disturbed night cause mental and physical health problems, problems with work etc.’
When asked ‘How could we ensure future events do not become a nuisance to neighbours?’ respondents suggested
• Prevent the drinking of alcohol in the evenings • Create a green sound barrier to absorb noise • Play only acoustic music • Enforce a maximum decibel rule for music • Enforce parking violations • Change the design so it is a community area during the day and secure at night. • Ensure stewards stay on site until crowds have fully dispersed, enforce a curfew • Make toilet facilities available • Inform residents ahead of time about events and provide a point of contact for event organiser
‘The key issue is to ensure compliance with stipulations in the Event Management Plan. RBK must take responsibility for checking this at each event. Feedback should be sought from resident and business representatives after each event. The continued use of EBW for public events should be reviewed annually by the KTNC as if significant problems persist it is totally unreasonable to expect residents to endure these.’
H1 Appendix H Kingston Town Neighbourhood Committee 10 September 2014 Application for a Highway Street Cafe Licence – L’Artigiano
Report by Director of Place
Purpose To determine whether a Highway Street Cafe Licence is to be approved for L’Artigiano, Unit G, Crown Arcade, Kingston.
Recommendations
1. To RESOLVE that the application is refused in this case.
Key Points
A. An application has been received from the owner of L’Artigiano, Unit G, Crown Arcade, Kingston upon Thames, seeking permission under the Highways Act 1980 to locate five tables and twenty chairs on the pavement outside number 4 Church Street, Kingston. B. The application is for Sundays only as a nearby street trader occupies the area for the remainder of the week. C. The Highways Act 1980 permits the local authority to licence the provision of street cafes, subject to statutory consultation and the application meeting the conditions of the licence. D. The Council first considered and approved the legal provision of street cafes in June 1995, and since then a street cafe culture has generally been encouraged in the borough. E. Upon receipt of an application, formal consultation is undertaken with neighbouring frontagers, Neighbourhood Councillors and members of the Street Trading Panel/Street Activities Working Group comprising of Council Officers, KingstonFirst and the Police. Public Notices are clearly displayed in the window of the premises seeking the licence. F. Officers have reviewed the application and the objections received during the consultation period. Based on this review it is felt that the application should be refused.
Context 1. The Head of Environment has delegated powers for the establishment of street cafes and these powers are used when no objections are received. Objections have been received and therefore the Committee is asked to determine the outcome of this application.
H2 Options 2. To approve or refuse the application.
Consultations 3. Initially a 28 day consultation took place and four replies were received, all of which objected to the application. 4. The Kingston Town Neighbourhood Engineer objected as he felt there was insufficient space for the proposed tables and chairs. In addition, the cafe is 35 yards from the site of the furniture along a narrow passageway. The Neighbourhood Engineer expressed concerns regarding health and safety when hot drinks are carried along this narrow passageway. 5. Kingstonfirst also objected, expressing concerns regarding the ability of customers to access surrounding businesses with ease. They also objected to the application as it was felt that the licence would compromise any future plans for the nearby trader to operate from the location on Sundays. 6. A street trader objected because they felt the proximity of the tables and chairs to their nearby stall would lead to health and safety issues. The trader also stated that the cafe is some distance away from the proposed licensed area and it is not readily identifiable with the proposed location. In addition, the trader felt the application did not benefit the area aesthetically or financially. 7. A nearby business objected due to the health and safety issues of staff carrying hot drinks in the narrow pedestrian passageway. The objector also stated that cafe staff movements would have an adverse affect on other businesses in the Crown Arcade. The frontage and displays of their business are currently partially blocked by the existing street trader and the objector stated that the application would add to that obstruction and have a further detrimental impact on business.
Outcome and recommendation 8. Officers are recommending this application for refusal for the following reasons: • Health and safety risks caused by staff movements through the narrow passageway whilst carrying hot drinks. • The size of the proposed licensed area. It is considered that this will be too small to accommodate the proposed five tables and twenty chairs. As a result, the tables and chairs are likely to move outside of the licensed area and potentially cause an obstruction in this busy pedestrianised area.
Timescale 9. If this application is granted the licence will be operational immediately subject to the approval of planning permission.
Resource Implications 10. Officers will monitor the location to ensure the conditions of the licence are being adhered to.
Legal Implications
H3 11. The Highways Act 1980 permits the local authority to licence the provision of street cafes.
Equalities Impact Assessment
12. The chairs would assist those customers with mobility issues who wish to take their refreshments outside of the premises.
Environmental Implications 13. The provision of street cafes can add to the ambience of an area and provide an additional source of seating and refreshment provision. Any adverse environmental effects of street cafes, such as litter, discarded food and dirty tables are managed by council officers.
Background papers – held by author Author of report – Roy Douglas, Lead Officer - Compliance (Street Services) 020 8547 5902 e-mail: [email protected]
List of reports/documents Application Form Consultation Notice Photographs
H4 H5 H6 H7 H8 H9 H10 I1 Appendix I Maldens and Coombe Neighbourhood Committee - 2 September 2014 Surbiton Neighbourhood Committee – 2 September 2014 Kingston Town Neighbourhood Committee – 10 September 2014 South of the Borough Neighbourhood Committee – 10 September 2014
Local Implementation Plan (LIP) Programme 2015/16 – Annual Spending Submission
Report by Director of Place
Purpose
To consult Neighbourhood Committees on the Council’s LIP Annual Spending Submission to Transport for London (TfL) in order to secure funds for local transport initiatives in 2015/16.
Recommendations
To RESOLVE that:
1. the prioritised list of schemes for 2015/16 which is highlighted in ANNEX 1 be endorsed; and
2. any resolutions raised by this Committee be reported to the Policy and Finance Committee on 25 September 2014.
Key Points
A. The Committee is requested to endorse the Council’s LIP Annual Spending Submission to TfL in order to secure funds for local transport initiatives in 2015/16. A list of initiatives is set out in ANNEX 1 , this list can be expanded by any schemes recommended by the Neighbourhood Committee tonight.
B. Any resolutions raised by this Committee or coming from the workshop will be reported to the Policy and Finance Committee on 25 September 2014.
Context
1. On 3 June TfL issued this year’s LIP Guidance, which indicated that the LIP funding available to the Borough in 2015/16 would be a little under £1.5m. The indicated allocations by TfL budget heading is as follows: • Corridors and Neighbourhoods and Supporting Measures – £1.393m • Local Transport Funding – £0.1m • Principal Roads maintenance - £0.508m
2. In addition, LIP funding will also be available for Bridge Strengthening schemes, Principal Road Maintenance schemes announced at £0.508m and Major Schemes. Funding for Principal Road Maintenance and Bridge Strengthening schemes will continue to be allocated by TfL on the results of condition surveys. Funding for a new Major Scheme project is available on a competitive basis; subject to the strength of scheme proposals put to TfL (proposals for Major Schemes can be submitted to TfL at any point of the year) but for a scheme to receive funding in the following financial year the submission would need to be submitted by 5 September 2014. A bid for continuing the works in the Ancient Market to improve pedestrian I2 linkages toward the river, Clarence Street and the Memorial Gardens is being prepared but may not make this cut off date.
3. In November 2013, RBK’s 3 year LIP Delivery Plan for the 2014/15 to 2016/17 period was endorsed by RBK and approved by TfL. This included a Programme of Investment which set out broad transport project headings to be progressed by RBK to 2016/17. This was endorsed by Place and Sustainability Committee on 27 March 2014.
4. The Mayor’s Roads Task Force (RTF) is an independent body, which has been set up to consider how to tackle the challenges facing London’s streets and roads, and has highlighted the importance of recognising the different functions that London’s roads and public spaces can and do perform. As such, in future bids Boroughs will have to assess street types using the RTF guidance on this as part of their submissions, and at this stage any assessment is only a draft. Boroughs will have the opportunity to review and agree their own networks. This process will to allow TfL to consider the adoption of Street Types across all authorities, which will play an important role in providing a unified view on where best to apply different measures.
5. The 2015/16 Spending submission guidance states that the new Road Safety Action Plan, ‘ Safe Streets for London ’ (SSfL), must be given due consideration particularly with regard to vulnerable road users (pedestrians, cyclists and powered two wheelers) and this sets out actions by which TfL, the London boroughs and other partners can improve road safety delivery through targeted investment, and officers will review this guidance during the scheme development stage. To assist boroughs in this task TfL have produced a colour coded map of London and a schedule showing roads and junctions where the incidence of collisions involving vulnerable road users is above that expected for the type of road or junction. This highlights locations already being considered within the existing programme such as Coombe Road / London Road / Birkenhead Avenue, Penrhyn Road and Fountain Roundabout. Other identified sites will be investigated during the forthcoming year.
6. Although this Authority has been successful in achieving around £30m to introduce the mini Hollands project, TfL has made it clear that this additional funding to achieve the step change of much greater use of cycling as a mode choice. It is therefore imperative that we continue to spend LIP funding on those cycling schemes that would have progressed had we been unsuccessful in our bid.
7. Neighbourhood workshops have been held to advise both new and re-elected Members of the proposals and to provide the opportunity for them to raise concerns and suggest additional proposals for consideration. The meeting was held on 24 July 2014 and there were representatives from all 4 neighbourhoods. At this meeting the Lead Member for Environment and Sustainability expressed a wish for change in the way LIP schemes are prepared and developed but recognised this needs to be a gradual process moving towards the funding of fewer but bigger projects to create a more significant impact. He did state that he wished two proposals to be advanced more quickly, these were the creation of a ‘Surbiton – Kingston Metro’ utilising the existing excellent bus services and enhanced cycling facilities through Canbury Gardens either as part of the Quietways Project or utilising Strategic Cycling funds.
8. The Council is required to submit a detailed list of transport initiatives for 2015/16, including associated costs, for the first two programme areas set out in Para 1. A list of reserve schemes is also required. ANNEX 1 provides a summary of the current list of initiatives. I3
9. TfL will then assess the initiatives submitted. TfL will query or reject initiatives if they do not comply with the Mayor of London’s Transport Strategy.
10. This is also the opportunity for officers to submit first stage Major Scheme bids. These are larger schemes in excess of £2m which are too large to be funded from the LIP. Tolworth Greenway was the last project to be funded by this means. It is proposed that an application for the Kingston Futures - Ancient Market Phase 2 project be made in September 2014, which was one of several Major Schemes included in the agreed LIP Delivery Plan 2014/15 to 2016/17. Officers have been in discussion with TfL regarding an option to develop and implement elements of the Phase 2 proposals which could be delivered in year, and this could impact on the level of funding required through the Major scheme process.
Options
11. Officers have prepared a list of transport initiatives within the above financial frameworks for 2015/16. As in previous years, a methodology was developed to prioritise these schemes to ensure that lower priority schemes are phased in for later years, and schemes which do not meet the Mayor of London’s transport Goals and Outcomes are ruled out altogether. The shortlisted scheme list is set out in ANNEX 1 . These initiatives are framed by the Programme of Investment set out in RBK’s LIP Delivery Plan 2014/15 to 2016/17.
• Priority schemes will be those that have already been programmed to continue into 2015/16. For example they could be schemes which will complete detailed design in 2014/15 and then require implementation in 2015/16, or could be schemes which require additional funding to complete implementation. • Consideration has been given to the Mayor of London’s transport Goals and transport Outcomes, as well as our own LIP Objectives, given that this will be where TfL make the assessment. • Consideration has been given to the value for money these schemes represent (i.e. the balance between the number of people the scheme will benefit against the cost, as well as the severity of the issue that needs to be addressed). • Consideration has also been given to the key delivery risks (practical, financial, political, public acceptance).
12. It is recommended that the Neighbourhood Committee endorses the prioritised LIP scheme list which is highlighted in ANNEX 1. Any resolutions raised by this group or any new supported schemes arising since the workshops will be reported to the Policy and Finance Committee on 25 September 2014. The scheme list is an expansion of the scheme proposals Place and Sustainability Committee endorsed on 27 March 2014 as part of the approval of RBK’s LIP Delivery Plan 2014/15 to 2016/17.
Timescale
13. Surbiton and Maldens and Coombe Neighbourhood Committees are the first in the cycle of Neighbourhood Committees to consider this report on 2 September 2014. Kingston Town and South of the Borough will then consider the report at its meeting on 10 September 2014.
I4 14. The views expressed by the four Neighbourhood Committees will be reported to the Policy and Finance Committee on 25 September 2014.
15. The timetable for the 2015/16 LIP Annual Spending Submission is set out in Figure 1 below. The key action will be to submit a scheme list to Transport for London by 3 October 2014.
Figure 1: Kingston 2015/16 LIP Funding Submission Timetable June 2014 to April 2015
Date Action Required Action
2 and 10 September 2014 Neighbourhood Committee sign-off for 2015/16 LIP schemes 5 September 2014 Submission of any Major Scheme Bid 25 September 2014 Policy and Finance Committee sign-off of 2015/16 schemes 3 October 2014 TfL Submission Deadline October to December 2014 TfL review submissions and discuss any issues arising from this review process December 2014 (tbc) TfL will confirm plans for schemes/intervention delivery to enable RBK to commence planning Early 2015 Neighbourhood committee advised of 2015/16 schemes Early 2015 Infrastructure Projects and Contracts Committee advised of 2015/16 schemes April 2015 2015/16 LIP Programme commences
Equalities Impact Assessment
16. N/A - no new policy is proposed
Resource Implications
17. LIP budgets for the Corridors, Neighbourhoods and Support measures programme is determined by TfL using a formula, and is therefore fixed for the Borough. The Local Transport Funding budget is fixed at £100,000 per annum. The Committee will be advised if TfL decide to make any changes to the formula or these budgets. Budgets for maintenance and bridges are determined on the basis of need and any budget for Major Schemes will be determined on the quality of the first stage submission put to TfL. . Network Implications
18. These will be reported for individual schemes when each scheme is reported to the relevant committee.
Background papers – held by John Bolland, Service Manager, Traffic Management & Design – 020 8547 4691, e-mail: [email protected] • LIP 2015/16 Annual Spending Submission Guidance (Transport for London) – 3 June 2014 • RBK’s LIP Delivery Plan 2014/15 to 2016/17. Other contributors: Chris Harte 020 8547 5962, email [email protected] • None other than those referred to in this report
Annex 1 Scheme location and RTF classification Proposed bid Outline Scheme details £000's Ancient Market Phase 2 - £1.785m The proposals are to continue the Ancient Market links toward the river, Continuation Project northwards towards Clarence Street and improved pedestrian links through Memorial Gardens. The scheme would build on the themes already adopted and introduced in the Market Place to link with both the riverside through the existing poor quality alleyways as well Thames Street to the north and High Street and Eden Street to the south. It is hoped that these changes would provide the incentive for land owners Major Schemes and developers to invest in the adjacent properties to provide active frontages that would transform dark uninviting canyons into vibrant and attractive thoroughfares. Options are currently being investigated for the design and implementation of elements of the Phase 2 works in 2014/15,focussing on the links to the riverside. The figure of just under £2.0m is a budget cost for the works although this figure is likely to change once the scheme is designed in more detail when the scope of the project may expand to cover a greater area or to include further improvements. The I5 Step Process means that an initial bid will be made for £200K for scheme development. Further funding may then be provided TfL approvals are received, but this will require a level of match funding from Sect 106 or CIL contributions. Strategic Route A2043 Fountain 200 Maldens and Coombe Strategic Working Group are working on options Roundabout - Any options may to reduce congestion and collisions (particularly pedestrians and cycles) require reviewing subject to the and introduce public realm alterations to the Fountain Roundabout area. outcomes of a successful bid to the It is proposed that the works will be delivered in a phased approach, with Mayor’s Cycling Vision for London. initial elements starting in March 2015 and the main scheme will be implemented in 2015/16. Corridors and A243 Brighton Road/Maple Road 75 Scheme proposals will look at providing a local widening on the south Neighbourhoods kerb re-alignment - Any options side Brighton Road, on the westbound approach. This may impact on may require reviewing subject to statutory undertakers plant and other street furniture, such as street the outcomes of a successful bid to trees, lamp columns and cycle parking. The widening will provide the Mayor’s Cycling Vision for additional space to allow straight ahead traffic to pass on the inside of London. right turning vehicles. Surbiton – Kingston Metro 50 Excellent bus services already operate between Kingston and Surbiton. Surbiton is blessed with excellent fast train service to London, Guildford, Woking and other destinations in Surrey. This scheme will build upon this by encouraging car users from Surrey and London to transfer to train and bus, bringing new visitors to Surbiton as well as providing a fast and convenient sustainable journey to Kingston and back. It is envisaged that an new high tech information panel would be provided at Surbiton station forecourt, improved crossing facilities with all appropriate buses ‘badged’ to let travellers know that they run between the two town centres. Strategic cycling schemes 80 We will deliver the strategic cycling network and ‘Quietway’ network in the borough with LIP funding. The focus will be on schemes that overcome barriers and safety concerns for cyclists in order to increase take up of cycling. Included will be an enhancement of cycling facilities within Canbury Gardens. Other specific routes will be identified through the mini Hollands team. Strategic Walking schemes 75 Proposals for 2015/16 will focus on proposals for Kingston – Surbiton walking route, enhancements for the shopping Parades at Coombe Rd
(KT) and Berrylands. Investigations into footpath for Lower Marsh Lane. I6 Proposals for 2016/17 will be determined annually future annual spending submission process through future annual spending submission process Future scheme development 75 Funding will be used to carry out Review of the Borough's Collision data, helping to identify any areas where detailed investigations are required. Funding is also used to bring schemes identified in this Programme of Investment to delivery stage in subsequent years (or to bring forward delivery of schemes).
Funding allows for schemes/projects that are identified in this investment programme to be investigated and developed for implementation as part of future year delivery. Funding also allows on-going review of Borough’s collision data. Monitoring and Research 30 This budget helps maintain the borough Speed Indicator display signs (SIDS) and allows to better plan for future transport investment, funding for this programme can also be used to purchase cycle counters, traffic counters and contribute to air quality monitoring equipment Neighbourhood Improvements 478 Funding stream will be split equally and allows each of the four (which now includes budgets neighbourhoods (a to d below) to develop local schemes for previously held in 20mph schemes, feasibility/detailed design; Committee approval and implementation. bus stop accessibility, Freight, cycle parking) It also proposed that officers will be arranging LIP Workshops with members to determine priorities and potential future schemes. The schemes listed below are, therefore only indicative at this time. a) Kingston Town Neighbourhood (equal 1. Cross boundary scheme - completion or Implementation of Cranes schemes share of Park Avenue/Beaufort Road scheme N’hood fund 2. Review of Crossing facility in Coombe Road outside Norbiton Station £478k) 3. North Kingston Centre new secondary school site - review of routes to school to assist cycling and walking. I7
Scheme location Proposed bid Outline Scheme details £000's
b) Maldens and Coombe (equal 1. Completion of The Triangle Shopping Parade Improvements Neighbourhood Schemes share of 2. Implementation of road layout changes at Coombe Lane West/Traps N’hood Lane (supported S106 funding) fund 3. Implementation of zebra crossing on Kingston Road, by South Lane £478k) West - subject to scheme development and Committee Approval 4. Implementation of new refuge island on Kingston Hill (by Berystede) - subject to scheme development and Committee Approval
c) Surbiton Neighbourhood (equal 1. Cross boundary scheme - completion or Implementation of Cranes Schemes share of Park Avenue/Beaufort Road scheme N’hood 2. Maple Road shopping parade fund 3. Ditton Road/Upper Brighton Road re-alignment £478k) Corridors and Neighbourhoods
d) South of the Borough (equal 1. Ewell Road Parade improvements (Elgar Avenue area) I8 Neighbourhood Schemes share of 2. Hook Parade improvements N’hood 3. Mansfield Road area wide review fund 4. Completion of Ashby Road Through traffic scheme £478k)
Cycle Training 125 We will deliver adult and child cycle-training. Funding will be used for the training of cyclists of all ages and abilities. This will include delivery of basic cycle training ("bikeability levels 1& 2") to children at all primary schools and increasing take up of advance cycle training for secondary headings school children. Funding will also be used for cycle training and activities for adults, particularly focused around increasing cycling to work. We will also continue to work in partnership with Public Health to encourage cycling for health and in ethnic and social economic groups not normally associated with high uptake in cycling.
Sustainable Transport Behavioural change programme 130 Funding will be used to increase the awareness of Sustainable Travel options and road safety, and to encourage behaviour change through campaigns
Schools Sustainable Transport 75 Funding will be used to promote and support the ongoing development and implementation of School Travel Plans to ensure they are effective in contributing to modal shifts in travel patterns. LTF Local Transport Fund 100
Total ( Excluding Major Schemes) 1493
I9 J1 Appendix J
Kingston Town Neighbourhood Committee
10 September 2014
Proposed new Zebra Crossing in Acre Road Road, Kingston
Report by Director of Place
Purpose:
The request for this proposal is based on emails received from parents travelling to the schools in the area. This report outlines the possibility of providing a new humped zebra crossing in Acre Road, as shown in the plan Annex 1.
Recommendation
To RESOLVE that:
A new humped zebra crossing is approved for implementation in Acre Road, as outlined in this report, and detailed in the attached Annex1 , subject to local consultation and no strong objections been received.
Key points
A. Acre Road links Richmond Road into Kings Road, at the vicinity there are a number of schools, and the majority of the catchment area of these schools are local, they use Acre Road and Kings Road for walking to schools, ward members and some parents contacted the Council seeking some improvements to the crossing point in Acre Road near the junction of Kings Road.
Context
1. There were no accidents at this location for the past three years. The volume of traffic in both directions during am peak hours is around 200 vehicles per hour. The speed of vehicles in this section is relatively low.
2. From the site visit, it is apparent that the technical justification PV 2 value “pedestrians and vehicles counts” do not meet the required value for a formal pedestrian crossing, according to the Department of Transport “The assessment and design of Pedestrian crossings – local Transport notes 1/95 and 2/95”.
3. However, during school terms, a large number of parents accompanying children / pupils to and from schools use this crossing. Therefore, despite that the pv2 does not meet any safer crossing criteria within this location, a crossing would benefit them and encourage more walking to schools, and assist all vulnerable road users.
4. Creating safer routes to schools and improving pedestrian routes are key to promoting the use of sustainable modes of transport. Achieving a modal shift will benefit the environment for the wider community by reducing noise and air pollution.
J2
Recommendation
5. Taken into consideration the request received, the site visit and to help meet policy no.21 under “Walking” in the RBK Local Implementation Plan to “comprehensively improve pedestrian facilities on the highway so that almost the whole road network can safely be used”, it is recommended to replace the hump from outside no 28 Cross Road into humped zebra crossing in order to assist pupils, parents and all other vulnerable road users to cross the road safely. Every effort will be made to minimise impact on on–street parking in Acre Road.
Timescale
6. Subject to the approval by Committee and no significant objections being received from local residents and stakeholders, the proposal is to be designed in detail, with the expectation that those works shown in Annex1 are implemented by March 2015.
Resource Implications
7. The full cost of implementing this scheme would be in the region of £15k which will be taken from the 2014/15 LIP allocation for walking.
Consultations
8. All affected residents, stakeholders will be consulted on the proposal. If strong objections received, a further report will be submitted to a future Committee meeting for consideration.
Equality Impact Assessment
9. Equality impact assessment is not needed, as there is no change to the existing policy.
Background papers : held by Younes Hamade, Project Engineer, Kingston Town Neighbourhood, tel.020 8547 5922, e-mail: [email protected]
• Emails • LIP (Local Implementation Plan) • Accidents data
J3
EXISTING BUILD-OUT AND HUMP TO BE REMOVED
PRELIMINARY
ANNEX 1 ACRE ROAD PROPOSED NEW RAISED ZEBRA CROSSING BETWEEN CROSS ROAD AND KINGS ROAD REMOVE EXISTING BUILD-OUT AND HUMP K1 Appendix K
Kingston Town Neighbourhood Committee
10 September 2014
Proposed new Pelican Crossing in Penrhyn Road, Kingston
Report by Director of Place
Purpose
The purpose of this proposal is to provide safer crossing facilities outside Kingston University Penrhyn Road campus to assist students and other road users.
Recommendation
To RESOLVE that:
A new pelican crossing (option two) is approved for design details, implementation in Penrhyn Road at the vicinity of Woodbines Avenue, subject to a local public consultation with effected residents, businesses, and key stakeholders and no strong objection been received.
Key Points
A. Penrhyn Road is one of the main roads into Kingston Town Centre, and it carry over 20,000 vehicles per day, it has a bus lane and a number of formal crossings.
B. Opposite Kingston University in Penrhyn Road campus, there is a bus stop, between Woodbines Avenue and Penrhyn Gardens estate, where many passengers / students arriving from Surbiton Station get off and cross the road negotiating live traffic.
C. Several reports have been received from Kingston University and students asking for a new formal crossing to be installed at this location in order to improve the pedestrians crossing facility.
Context
1. In March 2008, Kingston Town Neighbourhood Committee received a petition on behalf of Kingston university students asking for a relocation of the pelican crossing in order to assist them in their crossing, at that time the recommendation was: “the bus stop in Penrhyn Road by Penrhyn Gardens estate to be removed, in order to alleviate the problem”.
2. During local consultation strong objections were received from residents of Penrhyn Gardens estate “shelter housing for elderly” accusing the Council of not carrying out quality impact assessment for their need, then a petition was received asking for the scheme to be cancelled, consequently, Kingston Town Neighbourhood Committee considered this petition, and resolved that the bus stop remain at its current location. K2
3. In order to establish the justification for a new formal pedestrian crossing, Pedestrians count survey was carried out in November 2013, together with the volume of traffic using this section of Penrhyn Road. The outcomes are 451 pedestrians and 2671 per hour in both directions and the value of PV 2 is greater than 0.9x10 8, which meets the required value for a formal pedestrian crossing according to the department of transport “The assessment and design of Pedestrian crossings – local Transport notes 1/95 and 2/95”. For the last 3 years there were 19 collisions on Penrhyn Road and 15 were related to vulnerable road users, outside Kingston University Campus there was 3 slight and all of them are related to pedestrians crossing.
Options
4. Taking into account of the level of traffic use in Penrhyn Road, together with the number of existing crossing facilities along this section and the value of pv2, two options have been considered in order to assist pedestrian crossing outside Kingston University campus.
5. Option one: introduce new pedestrian refuge at the vicinity of the bus stop in Penrhyn Road - this proposal will assist pedestrians crossing the road, but they still need to negotiate live traffic, create narrow section of carriageway which will impact on cyclists safety, and reduce the length of the existing bus lane. See Annex 1 for further details.
6. Option two: introduce new formal pedestrian crossing outside Kingston University campus entrance. This proposal will benefit all road users and meet the requirement according to local transport notes 1/95 & 2/95, and has no impact on the carriageway width however, the starting of the bus lane still needs to be shortened in order to allow the installation of this proposal. It is essential to link this scheme to other traffic signals / formal crossings on Penrhyn Road in order to synchronise all these traffic signals together to avoid any traffic congestion on this very busy road into Kingston, and this is our preferred option for this location - see Annex 2 for further details.
7. The Council is committed to promoting sustainable travel and reducing the reliance on the use of the motor vehicle. This is achieved through a range of policies in the local implementation plan.
8. In light of the above, it is recommended that option two to be approved for design details and implementation in Penrhyn Road at the vicinity of Kingston University campus, subject to a local public consultation with affected residents, businesses, and key stakeholders and no strong objection been received.
Timescale
9. Subject to this meeting decision, and no strong objections been received, it is programmed for the scheme to be implemented within this financial year.
Resource Implications
10. These proposals are being funded wholly by Transport for London through the allocation for the Strategic Walking. K3
Consultation
11. All stakeholders will be consulted on the proposal, including emergency services. If strong objections received, a report will be submitted to a future Committee meeting for consideration.
Equality Impact Assessment
12. Equality impact assessment is not needed, as there is no change to the existing policy.
Background papers :
LIP ALLOCATION Previous Kingston Town Neighbourhood Committee meeting March 2008 Pv2 survey result report held by Younes Hamade – 020 8547 5922 e-mail: [email protected]
K4 K5
PROPOSED NEW START OF BUS LANE
EXISTING BUS LANE PROPOSED NEW PELICAN CROSSING OUTSIDE NO. 28 PENRHYN ROAD
PRELIMINARY
ANNEX 2 PENRHYN ROAD OUTSIDE NO. 28 PROPOSED NEW PELICAN CROSSING BETWEEN PENRHYN GARDENS AND WOODBINES AVENUE. L1 Appendix L Kingston Town Neighbourhood Committee 10 September 2014 Neighbourhood Grants to Voluntary Organisations
Report by Capability Lead for Communities
Purpose To consider applications for Neighbourhood Grants Recommendations
To RESOLVE the allocation of grants as follows:
1. Everyone Matters £750
2. Thames Landscape Strategy £750
3. Centre for Community Development (Healthy Mind Project) £750
Key Points
A. The total budget allocated for grant making to Neighbourhood Committees in 2014/15 is £29,500.
B. The Kingston Town Neighbourhood Committee has a grants budget of £9,000 for 2014/15.
C. The resources allocated for Neighbourhood Grants should be used solely for the purposes of grant making.
Context 1. Subject to the criteria listed below, the Committee can decide to award grant aid where an activity is of direct benefit to the residents of the Neighbourhood in terms of social welfare, sports, art, play and leisure activities, youth provision or environmental improvement, particularly where it meets priorities set out in the Neighbourhood Community Plan. 2. The criteria for Neighbourhood grants are as follows:
• Kingston Town Neighbourhood encourages applications that contribute towards the priorities identified by the Neighbourhood or in its future Neighbourhood Community Plan.
• The Committee is keen to prioritise applications for new activities, but will consider repeat applications where the organisation can demonstrate that their project L2 delivers significant community benefit and can provide evidence of efforts to fundraise and/or apply for grants from elsewhere.
• Organisations should provide evidence of their fundraising/match funding plans as part of their application to ensure the best value for money possible for any Neighbourhood Grant contribution.
• Organisations that are linked to larger, national organisations should indicate, as part of their application, the annual accounts of the national organisation and explain why these cannot be used to fund local projects.
• Organisations should normally identify their exit strategy as part of any application to demonstrate their sustainability and not rely on continued grant funding from the Council.
• Where an organisation has applied for, or is in receipt of an RBK Corporate Grant they would be unlikely to be given a high priority for a Neighbourhood Grant.
• Cross-Neighbourhood applications will be considered, but only where a significant proportion of beneficiaries are resident in the Kingston Town Neighbourhood. Other Neighbourhoods may be approached to support their residents benefiting from the same project.
• The Neighbourhood Committee decision on all grant applications is final.
• The voluntary organisation making the application must have a constitution and a system for accounting for income and expenditure.
• The maximum grant for each group or organisation is £750.
1) Everyone Matters Grant request: £750
3. Everyone Matters is a registered charity based in Bromley that formed in 2010. The main service includes organising professional musicians to provide workshops and informal concerts in special schools, schools and nurseries, nursing homes and day centres and in the wider community, including intergenerational projects, all with an emphasis on active participation by each client group. The organisation has 16 staff (freelance musicians employed for specific projects, 3 volunteers and 4 Committee members who meet 4 times a year.
4. The organisation has established a working relationship with Murray House and will be providing music for a special event on 9 September to celebrate creativity in older people at an Arts and Crafts Exhibition for residents across the borough. This event does not form part of the grant application.
5. A grant of £750 has been requested to pay musicians to provide further concerts at Murray House and Bradbury Active Age Centre in a series of “Conversation Pieces” designed to engage older audiences in choosing their own favourite items from a musical menu and to build convivial relationships with each group.
L3 6. Unaudited Financial Statements for the year ending 30 September 2013 shows an income of £30,760 which mainly consists of donations (£7,734), grants from Trusts and charities (£11,512), Local Authorities (£2,250) and Lottery Fund (£9,264). Expenditure mainly includes, Artists fees (£19,645) and artistic advisor (£7,973) This leaves a surplus of £1,570 and a balance carried forward of £2,153.
7. Projected budget for the events show income of £603, excluding the £750 applied for here, against expenditure of £1,353. Expenditure relates to artists’ fees (£1,030), administration (£207) and instrument porterage (£117). Income is expected from donations of £240, £40 from each of the planned venues.
8. Everyone Matters was awarded grants of £750 from Surbiton and Malden and Coombe neighbourhoods in 2012. Besides this application, the organisation has also applied to Maldens & Coombe and Surbiton Neighbourhoods for grants of £750.
Officers’ Report
9. The Royal Borough of Kingston will be celebrating Old People’s Festival on 6 October 2014 in the Guildhall; these events will complement and contribute to the essence of the festival at the various venues identified.
10. The proposal for the ‘Conversation Pieces’ concerts represents good value for money based on the projected budget. The theme of ‘Conversation Pieces’ also links to current arts and cultural priorities for participatory arts projects.
11. As the venues in question have shown strong interest in receiving these concerts, a grant of £750 is recommended. This project has the potential to develop further if positive feedback is received from these events. It is also recommended that Everyone Matters looks into joining up with other groups in the Borough who are doing work around music and memory, such as Bounce Theatre. 12. Grants are expected to be used within one year of the award and a monitoring form is returned confirming how the grant has been used.
RECOMMENDATION: a grant of £750
2) Thames Landscape Strategy
13. The Thames Landscape Strategy is an unincorporated association with a constitution which formed in 1994 to conserve, enhance and promote the River Thames between Weybridge, Hampton, and Kew. The organisation is hosted by the London Borough of Richmond and has 13 Core Partner organisations including the 4 local boroughs, Royal Borough of Kingston, Hounslow, Richmond, and Elmbridge, and the statutory authorities and landowners including Environment Agency, National Trust, and Historic Royal Palaces. The organisation also works with over 200 local groups and organisations in the TLS area, including CARA, Kingston Society, Kingston Aviation Centenary Project.
14. The organisation has 2 staff, approximately 200 volunteers, and 48 committee members who meet 8 times a year. L4
15. A grant of £750 has been requested to support the installation of a lectern describing the history of aviation in Kingston into Canbury Gardens along with an opening event to promote the project, featuring a full scale replica of the Schneider Trophy winning floatplane which was tested from the Canbury Gardens slipway on Lower Ham Road. The grant will go towards the funding of the event to provide musical entertainment and towards the cost of transporting the plane to the site (it’s presence is being donated by the Brooklands Museum but the transport expenses need to be found from the project to take advantage of this generous offer)
16. An Expenditure and Income summary for the period 2013-14 shows an income of £70,000 consisting of Partner Income (£69,000) and Other Income (£2,000) and an expenditure of £89,000 including employee costs (£82,000), running costs (£2,000) and project costs (£5,000). A sum of £19,000 was transferred from the reserve account to cover the deficit, leaving a balance of £59,000.
17. Projected budget for the event shows income of £3,400, against expenditure of £4,150. Expenditure relates to the cost of prepping the area (£1,000), design and installation of the lectern (£1,400). Income is expected from donations (£1,500), council budget funding (£1,400) and TLS budget (£500).
Officers’ Report
18. This funding will allow Thames Landscape Strategy to take advantage of the generous offer of the floatplane from Brooklands Museum and to provide expenses to the musicians. The event and the lectern itself are open to the public so will benefit the local and wider community of Kingston Town and Canbury Gardens.
19. The organisation has raised £3000 so far from the Father Thames Trust, Kingston Council sources, and in-kind help, from staff and the community, to pay for the lectern design and installation. The grant funding will cover the event expenses of music and the floatplane. This is a one off event however, Kingston Council has accepted commitment to maintain the lectern and local volunteer groups, including TLS and CARA, regularly hold volunteer days in the Park to carryout vegetation management
20. Grants are expected to be used within one year of the award and a monitoring form is returned confirming how the grant has been used.
RECOMMENDATION: a grant of £750
3) Centre for Community Development Grant request £750 (Healthy Mind Project)
21. The Centre for Community Development (CCD) is a registered charity set up in 2005. They provide a range of services for the Tamil community and have three main strands of work: L5 • The Elders Empowerment Programme including the Elders Drop-in Service in Norbiton • Tamil Women Development Forum which aims to develop and advocate for Tamil speaking women in global policy relating to families, human rights, education and social justice etc. • The Healthy Mind (Mental Health project) which is the subject of this application.
22. The Healthy Mind project offers support to people with, or at risk of, mental health problems and meets every week to discuss issues, socialise and identify with service providers how barriers to engaging with mainstream mental services can be overcome. The project meets at the Milaap Centre and at other community venues.
23. A grant of £750 is requested to carry out a community event during Mental Health week in October 2014 at the Shiraz Mirza Community Hall as part of the Healthy Mind project. The event will aim to provide information about mental health problems and services available in Kingston, to reduce the impact of stigma on people’s mental wellbeing, to strengthen social networks and reduce isolation, and to bring together different ethnic communities to learn from their diverse cultures. The projected budget for this shows expenditure of £750 mainly comprised of insurance/refreshments/training (£230), hall hire (£200) and publicity (£70). Income is projected from this RBK Neighbourhood grant.
24. The CCD’s accounts to the end of March 2011 show income of £9,978 against expenditure of £17,293, leaving an operating deficit of £7,315, funded from reserves. The remaining reserves stand at £905. The budget for the event and follow up meetings includes £200 for premises hire, £90 for publicity and £240 for expenses for follow-up meetings. The organisation does not currently make any charges for the Healthy Mind project.
25. The group was awarded a Kingston Town Neighbourhood grant of £750 towards the Healthy Mind Project in 2011/12 and was in receipt of a 2014/15 Emerging Needs grant of £1,500 towards the cost of the Elders Empowerment Programme.
Officer’s report 26. The CCD is an active member of the One Norbiton Community Working group and mental health issues have been identified as one of their priority areas. The Tamil Community suffers significant mental health issues compared with the population as a whole and the CCD has worked with mental health professionals to address these concerns of the community.
27. It is hoped the event will attract local people to get involved not only as an opportunity to share their experiences but also as a way of encouraging people to access mainstream mental health services. The full grant of £750 is recommended.
28. Grants are expected to be used within one year of the award and a monitoring form is returned confirming how the grant has been used.
RECOMMENDATION: a grant of £750
L6
Statutory powers for grant making 29. The Head of Legal Services advises that a local authority is able to act only if empowered to do so by statute. This includes, in specific circumstances, the making of grants to voluntary groups. The statutory power under which a particular grant may be awarded will vary according to the type of activity which the grant will support. It is a requirement for every Council that grants made under Social Services legislation be exercised either by the statutory committee responsible for Social Services functions or by the Strategic Director. Therefore, any grants deemed to be in this category will be considered by the Neighbourhood Committee and passed to the Director of Adult Social Care Services so that the Strategic Director’s delegated powers can be exercised.
30. Application 1 may be authorised under Section 145 of the Local Government Act 1972, relating to the provision of entertainment, which gives local authorities the power to contribute towards the expenses of anything necessary or expedient for the provision of entertainment of any nature, and for the development and improvement of the Council’s understanding and practice of the arts.
31. Applications 2 and 3 may be authorised under Section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972, which gives local authorities the power to incur expenditure in the interests of their area which is not otherwise authorised, including contributing to the funds of charitable bodies in furtherance of their work in the UK, or to bodies providing any public service in the UK other than for the purposes of gain.
Financial implications 32. There is currently £5,250 in the Committee’s Neighbourhood Grants budget. If the recommendations in this report are supported then there will be £3,000 remaining for 14/15. Environmental implications 33. Both applications propose to make a positive contribution to the local environment.
Background Papers : held by Jill Darling, Team Leader, Voluntary and Community Sector (author of report), Strategic Business tel: 020 8547 5124, email: [email protected]
• Applications and supporting documents from the individual organisations.
M1 Appendix M KingstonTown Neighbourhood Committee 10 September 2014
2014/15 Budget Monitoring Update Report by Director of Finance
Purpose To update the committee on the 2014/15 budget monitoring position for the Neighbourhood budget
Recommendation: That the Committee note the 2014/15 Neighbourhood budget monitoring position That the Committee approve the discretionary allocations set out in Annex 1
Key Points
A. The quarter one budget monitoring for the Kingston Town Neighbourhood budget shows a forecast outturn underspend of £10k. B. The 2013/14 outturn underspend of £126k has been carried forward for use on discretionary schemes in this financial year as agreed by the Policy and Finance Committee on 3 July 2014. C. Annex 1 contains proposals for allocation of discretionary budget in 2014/15.
Context 1. Kingston Town Committee received a report on 18 June which confirmed the 2014/15 budget and 2013/14 financial outturn. This was also reported as part of the Council outturn report to the Policy and Finance Committee on 3 July where the carry forward of outturn Neighbourhood variances was agreed. 2. The 2013/14 outturn position was a £126k underspend for this neighbourhood and this has now been allocated to the discretionary budget. Last year the committee also agreed a movement into a reserve of £32k to fund playground improvements in Latchmere that had started but were not finished at the end of the financial year. This has now also been drawn back out of the reserve and added to the discretionary budget, bringing the total to £158,334. 3. The Neighbourhood Manager has held discussions with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Committee to identify a number of priorities that could be funded from the available discretionary budget. The Committee is requested to review and approve these allocations as set out in Annex 1 for use this year. A number of allocations were made last year but were not spent in full. The Committee is requested to review these and approve those which are still required to be held. If all proposals in Annex 1 are approved there will be no remaining discretionary budget available. 4. The 2014/15 quarter one budget monitoring is presented in Annex 2. This shows a forecast underspend of £10k due to minor underspends in the Rangers budget, additional lettings income for Tudor Hall and a minor underspend in the M2 management and operations budget . Comments on variances have been received from the relevant service managers and are also presented in Annex B. Resource Implications The Committee is asked to review the proposed allocation of discretionary budget in Annex 1.
Background papers – held by author - [email protected] Author of report – Victoria Adams M3 ANNEX 1
KINGSTON TOWN NEIGHBOURHOOD DISCRETIONARY BUDGET
. Spend Proposed Original Allocation to 14/15 Allocation date Allocation 2013/14 1 One Norbiton (project now finished) 8,118 0 0 2 Tudor Ward 7,000 3,014 4,000 3 Grove Ward 7,000 5,356 1,700 4 Canbury Ward 7,000 0 7,000 5 Norbiton Ward 7,000 6,980 0 6 Margaret Lockwood Blue Plaque 400 0 400 7 Canbury Gardens - match funding 10,000 0 10,000 8 Kingston Library - toilet facilities 30,000 30,870 0 9 Aviation Plaques (no longer required) 9,500 0 0 10 Potholes 23,782 23,782 0 TOTAL 13/14 SCHEMES C/FWD 23,100
2014/15 – New Allocations 1 Canbury Gardens Aviation 2,000 Lectern 2 Latchmere Rec upgrade to catering facilities 3,500 3 Neighbourhood Fund for Councillor Bids 77,734 4 4 x £5000 Neighbourhood Ward allocations 20,000 TOTAL NEW PROPOSALS 103,234
TOTAL PROPOSED ALLOCATIONS 126,334
Total Discretionary (incl reserve funding) 158,334 Less £32k reserve funding to be spent on -32,000 Playground Improvements Total available discretionary (13/14 126,334 underspend c/fwd)
Total Proposed Allocations 126,334 REMAINING UNALLOCATED 0 DISCRETIONARY BUDGET ANNEX 2
2014/15 BUDGET MONITORING – Q1
Reserves & Latest Actual Forecast Final Budget Forecast SERVICE Recharges Budget Month Outturn Comments 2014/15 Outturn adjustments 2014/15 3 Variation £ £ £ £ £ £ Place KT - HIGHWAYS MAINTENANCE 226,800 0 226,800 -49,166 226,800 0 KT - PLANNED MAINTENANCE 501,900 0 501,900 109 501,900 0 KT - RANGERS 59,300 0 59,300 12,556 54,868 -4,432 Salary underspend KT - TMS 15,000 0 15,000 -12,350 15,000 0 803,000 0 803,000 -48,851 798,568 -4,432 Learning & Childrens Services KT - Library Branches 388,100 0 388,100 118,719 388,100 0
388,100 0 388,100 118,719 388,100 0 M4
AFC Commissioning 1,400 0 1,400 0 1,400 0
Corporate Landlord KT - Advertising Income -6,000 0 -6,000 0 -6,000 0 KT - Tudor Hall -8,500 0 -8,500 -5,909 -10,500 -2,000 Increased lettings KT - Youth Centres 23,600 0 23,600 19,054 23,600 0 15,100 0 9,100 13,145 7,100 -2,000 Strategic Business KT - DISCRETIONARY ALLOCATIONS 0 158,334 158,334 21,330 158,334 0 KT - MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS 108,700 0 108,700 27,742 105,185 -3,515 Lower costs on promotion projects KT - NEIGHBOURHOOD GRANT 9,000 0 9,000 -1,150 9,000 0 117,700 158,334 276,034 47,922 272,519 -3,515 TOTAL OVERHEADS (non-controllable) 320,800 -78,993 241,807 0 0 0 GENERAL FUND TOTAL 1,646,100 79,342 1,719,441 130,937 1,467,688 -9,946
N1 Appendix N
Kingston Town Neighbourhood Committee
Work Programme Sept 2014
Updated 28 August 2014
5 November 2014
Consultation on CPZ east of Richmond Road
Street Cafe Licences (4) – Druid’s Head (3 Market Place), Patisserie Valerie (4 Griffin Centre, Market Place), Costa Coffee (6-9 Market Place), Costa Coffee (34 Market Place)
Proposals for introduction of 20 mph and zebra crossing in Park Road
Highway maintenance draft programme
Library Fees and Charges
Neighbourhood Grants
Neighbourhood Budget update
4 February 2015
Medium Term Service and Financial Plan & Detailed budget 15/16
Highway Maintenance Final Programme and Highway Asset Plan
Review of Strategic Pot Hole Programme
Neighbourhood Grants
Neighbourhood Budget update
Illegal Moorings information item
18 March 2015
Neighbourhood Grants
Neighbourhood Budget update
LDF – Gypsy and traveller sites DPD