Agenda Reports Pack PDF 901 KB

For enquiries on this agenda please contact Ann Sweeney 020 8547 5020/Fax 020 8547 5125 [email protected]

This agenda is available on: www.kingston.gov.uk/council/CommitteeMinutes

16 June 2005

AGENDA

A meeting of the DEVELOPMENT CONTROL will be held at the Guildhall, Kingston upon Thames on THURSDAY 23 JUNE 2005 at 7:30 pm

Members of the Committee

Councillor Vicki Harris (Chair) Councillor Barry O'Mahony (Vice Chair) Councillor Sue Baker Councillor Janet Bowen-Hitchings Councillor Patrick Codd Councillor David Cunningham Councillor Chrissie Hitchcock Councillor Simon James Councillor Steve Mama

EMERGENCY EVACUATION ARRANGEMENTS

On hearing the alarm which is a loud siren please leave the building by the nearest available fire exit and assemble by the triangle at the front of the Guildhall. Anyone requiring assistance to evacuate the building should go to the refuge areas which are situated outside Committee Room 1 and the Mayor’s Parlour where you will be met by a member of the building management team and assisted from the building.

SPEAKING ON A PLANNING APPLICATION, TREE PRESERVATION ORDER OR ENFORCEMENT CASE

Applicants and objectors may speak on planning applications if they have (a) previously responded to the consultation on an application and (b) if they have registered THREE days before the meeting to do so. 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.

Applicants can only register to speak if there are objectors who wish to speak. However there is an important difference between ‘applicant’ and ‘objector’ in the case of Enforcement action

Registering to speak - Everybody wishing to speak on an application, Enforcement Action or Tree Preservation Order must have registered to do so THREE days before the meeting – Ann Sweeney 020 8547 4629/Fax 020 8547 5125 e.mail: [email protected].. about registering to speak.

Deadline for registering to speak: 10:00am Tuesday 21 June These arrangements also apply to Enforcement cases and Tree Preservation Orders unless they are being discussed as a confidential item under the Access to Information rules. .

Enforcement action - the "applicant" is the land/property owner against whom enforcement action is proposed who may register to speak against the Council's proposed action. Those who are known to the Council as complainants affected by the development which is being enforced against may only speak if the "applicant" (land/property owner) registers to speak and they have also registered to do so. Tree Preservation Orders - the "applicant" (the land/property owner applying to lop or fell trees) can register to speak if the recommendation is to Refuse permission for the works and objectors to the proposed tree works have registered. Time for speaking - FIVE minutes is allowed for each side on each application. This time has to be shared by however many there are on each side. If there are a large number of speakers people must decide amongst themselves on a spokesperson or some other arrangement. The Chair of the meeting has no discretion to extend the time limit.

The order of speaking is

1. Planning Officer to present item 4. Sweep up by Planning Officer. 2. Objector(s) 5. Questions from Committee. 2A Applicant (land/property owner for Enforcement Action) 3. Applicant(s)/Supporter(s) 6. Debate by Committee. 3A Complainants – Enforcement Action

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.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ARRANGEMENTS FOR OTHER ITEMS

Questions and contributions to the debate will be accepted at the Chair’s discretion as the meeting progresses on

• applications on which other authorities/agencies have requested views

• other items in Part 1 of the agenda, falling outside the arrangements for speaking on planning applications

AGENDA

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND ATTENDANCE OF ALTERNATE MEMBERS

DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS

1. MINUTES

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 12 May 2005

2. PLANNING APPLICATIONS Appendix A

3. HIGH HEDGES Appendix B

4. KINGSTON HOSPITAL TRUST: HEALTHY TRANSPORT Appendix C STRATEGY PROGRESS AND MONITORING UPDATE

5. QUARTERLY PERFORMANCE MONITORING REPORT Appendix D

6. ANY URGENT ITEMS AUTHORISED BY THE CHAIR

APPENDIX A DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

THURSDAY 23 JUNE 2005

REPORT BY DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

PLANNING APPLICATIONS

INDEX

ITEM REGISTER ADDRESS DESCRIPTION RECOMMENDATION PAGE NO NO NO

A1 05/16201 Garages, Electric Parade, Details in compliance with condition 3 PERMIT A1 Surbiton (foundations and construction method statement) of planning permission 03/16189

05/16212 Garages, Electric Parade, Details pursuant to condition 5 PERMIT Surbiton (landscaping) of planning permission 03/16189/FUL

A2 05/16068 Garages, Electric Parade, Details pursuant to condition 7 (building PERMIT A5 Surbiton materials and boundary treatment) of planning permission 03/16189/FUL.

05/16072 Garages, Electric Parade, Details pursuant to condition 7 (Window PERMIT Surbiton details) of planning permission 03/16189

05/16073 Garages, Electric Parade, Details pursuant to condition 7 (hard PERMIT Surbiton surfaces) of planning permission 03/16189/FUL.

1098Z APPENDIX A DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

THURSDAY 23 JUNE 2005

REPORT BY DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

PLANNING APPLICATIONS

INDEX

ITEM REGISTER ADDRESS DESCRIPTION RECOMMENDATION PAGE NO NO NO

05/16074 Garages, Electric Parade, Details pursuant to condition 7 (bin PERMIT Surbiton stores) of planning permission 03/16189/FUL.

05/16075 Garages, Electric Parade, Details pursuant to condition 7 (Bicycle PERMIT Surbiton storage facilities) of planning permission 03/16189/FUL.

A3 05/09010 West Park Hospital, Horton Outline planning permission for about RAISE OBJECTIONS A10 Lane, Epsom 350 dwellings, hotel/conference facility and associated community building on a gross ground floor footprint of no more than 27,050 sqm; open space; main access onto West Park Road and emergency only access onto Christ Church Road, related on-site infrastructure, roads, drainage and other services, (Adjoining Authority Consultation)

1098Z APPENDIX A DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

THURSDAY 23 JUNE 2005

REPORT BY DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

PLANNING APPLICATIONS

INDEX

ITEM REGISTER ADDRESS DESCRIPTION RECOMMENDATION PAGE NO NO NO

A4 05/12075 2-6 Vicarage Road, 13-19 Wood Erection of 9-storey 150 bedroom hotel AGREE IN PRINCIPLE A16 Street, 3-13 Water Lane, with conferencing/banqueting facilities, BUT DEFERRED Kingston Upon Thames business centre, meeting rooms (Use Class C1), restaurants/bars (Use Class A3) and health and fitness suite (Use Class D2), with vehicular access to pick- up/drop-off point from Water Lane.

A5 03/10215 Chessington World Of Use of 22 acre field for an animal safari PERMIT A35 Adventure, Leatherhead Road, including construction of aviaries, animal Chessington, KT9 2HS houses and safari look outs, animal enclosures, landscaping and pathways linking to proposed hotel and remainder of theme park.

A6 05/12214 The Barge Dock Site, Down Hall Erection of "boathouse" building AGREE IN PRINCIPLE A67 Road, Kingston Upon Thames (821m2) over the Barge Dock for use as BUT DEFERRED a restaurant / cafe on first floor with small ground floor reception and improved mooring facilities (Revised Plans)

1098Z APPENDIX A DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

THURSDAY 23 JUNE 2005

REPORT BY DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

PLANNING APPLICATIONS

INDEX

ITEM REGISTER ADDRESS DESCRIPTION RECOMMENDATION PAGE NO NO NO

A7 05/12242 Kingston Power Station, Skerne Variation of Clause 4, Schedule 2 of AGREE IN PRINCIPLE A91 Road, Kingston Upon Thames S106 legal agreement (ref 95/3394) for BUT DEFERRED the development of the power station site for residential and a hotel, to remove the restriction reserving the southern part of the power station site for a hotel for a period of 10 years to 13th September 2006.

1098Z

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

THURSDAY 23 JUNE 2005

REPORT BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

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 Unitary Development Plan Proposed First Alteration.

Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan Proposed First Alteration.

A1 Register Nos: 05/16201/REM and 05/16212/REM Expiry Date 14/06/05 Expiry Date 20/06/05

Address: GARAGES, ELECTRIC PARADE, SURBITON Ward: St Marks Description of Proposal: Details in compliance with condition 3 (foundations and construction method statement) of planning permission 03/16189

RECOMMENDATION APPROVE DETAILS

Plan Type: Approval of Reserved Matters

Applicant's Plan Nos: Method statement Received 19/04/05 Ground beams spec Received 19/04/05 R01 C1 Received 19/04/05 S01 C1 Received 19/04/05 S02 C1 Received 19/04/05 S10 C2 Received 19/04/05 S11 C1 Received 19/04/05 S12 C2 Received 19/04/05 C02 C1 Received 19/04/05 C03 C1 Received 19/04/05 C04 C1 Received 19/04/05 - A1 - 1098Z

S14 C1 Received 19/04/05 S13 C1 Received 19/04/05 CO1 C1 Received 19/04/05

Basic Information:

Development Plan: Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan Proposed First Alteration UDP Policies BE3 Development in Conservation Areas BE9 Trees and Soft Landscaping

Total Site Area 749sq m Total Floor Area 860sq m Density Dwellings 7 Habitable rooms 21 No. of Units 7

Car Parking Required 7 Proposed 7

Previous Relevant History 0316189FUL Demolition of existing garages and 13/01/04 erection of a mews development of seven no. two bedroom houses with integral garages and two visitors spaces

Consultations

Tree Officer – Considers that the proposed foundations, services and drainage will require significant excavation in close proximity to protected, mature trees adjoining the SW and SE boundaries of the site. However given the existing site conditions (demolished garages and substantial concrete surfacing) considers it unlikely that significant tree roots will be encountered.

The landscaping proposals are acceptable.

Surbiton Conservation Area Advisory Committee - No objections.

Background

1. On 13.01.2004 planning permission 03/16189/FUL was granted, subject to a legal agreement, for the demolition of existing garages and erection of a mews development of 7 two bedroom houses with integral garages and two visitors spaces. Members have requested that the details pursuant to conditions are presented to Committee.

- A2 - 1098Z

The Site

2. The site lies on the west side of Electric Parade and formerly comprised a row of 1950’s lock-up garages (these have now been demolished). It is within the Victoria Avenue Conservation Area and is adjoined by the rear gardens of the Victorian dwellings to the south and west. To the north the site is bordered by St Andrew’s Hall. The properties on the other side of Electric Parade are located in the Surbiton Town Centre Conservation Area. There are no significant trees within the site however there are TPO trees in the rear gardens of the adjoining properties, nos. 8, 12 and 18 Victoria Avenue.

The Proposal

3. Applications for approval of the following details have been received :

05/16201/REM – Details in compliance with Condition 3 (foundations and construction method statement)

Pipe bending protection near trees Pile and beam foundations proposed (to a maximum depth of 16m) Method statement for Hollow Stem Piling

05/16212/REM – Details pursuant to Condition 5 (landscaping)

Drawing no. 264 C100 B indicates. 14 small areas of landscaping proposed.

Considerations

4. The issues to be considered are the impact on the adjacent TPO trees and the effect on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

Trees

5. The proposed foundations, services and drainage would ordinarily result in root severance to adjoining TPO trees. The Tree Officer is of the view that, given the former use of the site and works which have already been undertaken it is unlikely that further roots will be encountered.

The Effect on the Character and Appearance of the Conservation Area

6. The foundations would not be visible and there would therefore be no impact upon the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Given the limited potential for new planting the proposed landscaping scheme is considered to be acceptable.

- A3 - 1098Z

Recommendation

SUMMARY REASONS FOR APPROVAL :

05/16201/REM

The proposed foundations and construction method statement would result in no further damage to surrounding trees and would preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The details therefore comply with Policies BE3 and BE9 of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan Proposed First Alteration.

05/16212/REM

The proposed landscaping scheme would make a positive contribution to the appearance of the site and the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The details therefore comply with Policies BE3 and BE9 of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan (Proposed First Alteration).

- A4 - 1098Z

Development Control Committee

Date of Meeting: 23/06/05 ______

A2 Register Nos: 05/16068/REM Expiry Date 25/04/05 05/16072/REM Expiry Date 31/05/05 05/16073/REM Expiry Date 19/04/05 05/16074/REM Expiry Date 19/04/05 05/16075/REM Expiry Date 19/04/05

Address: GARAGES, ELECTRIC PARADE, SURBITON Ward: St Marks Description of Proposals:

05/16068/REM Details pursuant to condition 7 (building materials and boundary treatment) of planning permission 03/16189/FUL.

05/16072/REM Details pursuant to condition 7 (Window details) of planning permission 03/16189

05/16073/REM Details pursuant to condition 7 (hard surfaces) of planning permission 03/16189/FUL. 05/16074/REM Details pursuant to condition 7 (bin stores) of planning permission 03/16189/FUL. 05/16075/REM Details pursuant to condition 7 (Bicycle storage facilities) of planning permission 03/16189/FUL.

RECOMMENDATION APPROVE DETAILS

Plan Type: Approval of Reserved Matters

Applicant's Plan Nos: Eternit Torres Natural Slates Received 21/03/05 Redland Fleur-de-Lys Ridge Tile Received 28/02/05 Bath coping stone Received 07/01/05 Letter dated 07/01/2005 Received 07/02/05 Letter dated 22/02/2005 Received 22/02/05 Letter dated 28/02/2005 Received 28/02/05 Letter dated 21/03/2005 Received 30/03/05 264 C205 Received 22/02/05 264 C882 A Received 30/03/05 264 C847 Received 22/02/05 264 PL001A Received 30/03/05 Jeld-Wen Catalogue Received 07/04/05 Ibstock Leicester Red Facing Bricks Received 03/06/05 - A5 - 1098Z

Basic Information:

Development Plan: Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan Proposed First Alteration UDP Policies BE3 Development in Conservation Areas MW1 Development of Waste Management Facilities MW2 Waste and Environment T15 Cycling T20 Compliance with Car and Cycle Parking Standards

Total Site Area 749sq m Total Floor Area 860sq m Density 280 Dwellings 7 Habitable rooms 21 No. of Units 7 Car Parking Required 7 Proposed 7

Previous Relevant History

0316189FUL Demolition of existing garages and 13/01/04 erection of a mews development of seven no. two bedroom houses with integral garages and two visitors spaces

Consultations

Surbiton Planning Sub-Committee

The original plans were fairly specific and the materials should follow those originally shown as closely as possible to ensure that the most appropriate materials are used. The sample of proposed materials shown were thought to be acceptable.

Conservation and Design : All details acceptable. Samples of block paving/pathway materials should be submitted/agreed.

Waste Management : No objections.

Cycling Officer : Cycle racks should enable bicycles to be locked to an immovable object. It would also be desirable if the cycle store gate could be secured to offer additional security.

Letter of objection received from owner/occupier of dwelling in The Ridings, Surbiton. Objections raised on grounds of : - A6 - 1098Z

• Inappropriate use of materials (Tegular paving, UPVC windows, tarmac roadway, DR Farnley facing bricks, black plastic rainwater pipes, man- made slates) • Unauthorised tree surgery and non-compliance with Tree Method Statement.

Note : Details/samples of all proposed materials have been submitted. These include Ibstock Leicester Red bricks, timber framed windows and natural slates for the roof. Also note the comments made by the Conservation and Design Officer (above) and considerations below.

Background

1. These applications were presented to this Committee at its last meeting, on 12th May. Members deferred making a decision on the applications to enable some alternative materials to be submitted. The applicant has replaced the proposed brick originally proposed with an Ibstock Leicester Red brick and provided samples of all the materials to be used, and does not propose to change any other materials proposed.

The Site

2. The site lies on the west side of Electric Parade and formerly comprised a row of 1950’s lock-up garages (these have now been demolished). It is within the Victoria Avenue Conservation Area and is adjoined by the rear gardens of the Victorian dwellings to the south and west. To the north the site is bordered by St Andrew’s Hall which currently comprises a children’s day nursery on the ground floor with flats above. The properties on the other side of Electric Parade are predominantly three/four storeys in height with commercial premises on the ground floor with flats above. They are located in the Surbiton Town Centre Conservation Area.

The Proposal

3. Applications for approval of the following details have been received :

05/16068/REM – Details pursuant to Condition 7 (building materials and boundary treatment)

Walls – Ibstock Leicester Red bricks* Roof – Eternit Torres Natural Slates with Redland Fleur-de-Lys ridge tiles* Garage doors –Side hung timber Entrance doors – Timber with central glazed window Copings – Bath cast stone* Boundary treatment – Ibstock Leicester Red bricks*

*Samples deposited 22.02.05, 21.03.05 and 03.06.05 - A7 - 1098Z

05/16072/REM – Details pursuant to Condition 7 (window details)

Timber framed sliding sash windows proposed.

5/16073/REM – Details pursuant to Condition 7 (hard surfaces)

Tegular Pennant Grey block paving throughout with paving slabs for pedestrian areas and access ramps to dwellings.

05/16074/REM – Details pursuant to Condition 7 (bin stores)

2m high, 3.716m wide timber boarded bin enclosure (to house two Euro bins) proposed at entrance to development.

05/16075/REM – Details pursuant to Condition 7 (bicycle storage facilities)

Two semi vertical “Odoni” cycle stands (7 cycle capacity) to be sited between visitors car parking spaces within a 2m high wooden enclosure to match the garage doors.

Considerations

5. The main issues are the effect on the character or appearance of the Conservation Area and the suitability of facilities for waste management and cycle users.

Whether the proposed details would preserve or the character or appearance of Victoria Avenue Conservation Area

5. The proposed details, including building materials, window frames, bin enclosure and cycle enclosure would be appropriate to the Conservation Area and would enhance the visual amenities of the area. The facing bricks, Ibstock Leicester Reds, are similar to those at the properties along Victoria Avenue in the heart of the Conservation Area. The Tegular block paving is not considered to detract from the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Officers have investigated the possibility of using a cobbled courtyard surface and confirm that subject to an appropriate design, such a surface would allow adequate access by people with disabilities. However it is concluded that the Tegular block paving would provide an appropriate surfacing which would preserve the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.

Waste Management Facilities

6. The proposed bin enclosure would meet the requirements of the Council in terms of its size and siting.

- A8 - 1098Z

Cycle Parking Facilities

7. The cycle parking enclosure raises no objections in terms of its design and appearance and would provide for the storage of a sufficient number of cycles. The applicant has confirmed that the cycle enclosure would be lockable and that the racks would be capable of having cycles locked to them.

Recommendation

SUMMARY REASONS FOR APPROVAL :

05/16068/REM

The proposed materials and boundary treatment would preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the visual amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings. The details therefore comply with Policy BE3 of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan Proposed First Alteration.

05/16072/REM

The proposed window details would preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The details therefore comply with Policy BE3 of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan Proposed First Alteration.

05/16073/REM

The proposed details of hard surfaces would preserve and the enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. The details therefore comply with Policy BE3 of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan Proposed First Alteration.

05/16074/REM

The proposed bin enclosure would preserve and enhance the character of the conservation area and would meet the objectives of the Council for the provision of waste storage. The details therefore comply with Policies BE3, MW1 and MW2 of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan Proposed First Alteration.

05/16075/REM

The proposed cycle enclosure would preserve and enhance the character of the conservation area and would meet the objectives of the Council for cycle parking facilities. The details therefore comply with Policies BE3, T15 and T20 of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan Proposed First Alteration.

- A9 - 1098Z

Development Control Committee

Date of Meeting: 23/06/2005 ______

A3 Register No: 05/09010/ADJ

Address: WEST PARK HOSPITAL, HORTON LANE, EPSOM Ward: Borough Wide Description of Proposal: Outline planning permission for about 350 dwellings, hotel/conference facility and associated community building on a gross ground floor footprint of no more than 27,050 sqm; open space; main access onto West Park Road and emergency only access onto Christ Church Road, related on-site infrastructure, roads, drainage and other services, (Adjoining Authority Consultation)

RECOMMENDATION RAISE OBJECTIONS

Plan Type: Adjoining Authority Consultation Expiry Date: 16/05/05 Applicant's Plan Nos:

Zoning Site Plan Received 21/03/2005 Site Plan Received 21/03/2005 Core figures and plans Received 21/03/2005 Supporting statement Received 21/03/2005 Transportation assessment Received 21/03/2005 Transportation - figures and appendices Received 21/03/2005 Core documents Received 21/03/2005

Basic Information:

Consultations

Highways and Transportation 1. Support the principle of one access with only a supplementary emergency access onto Christ Church Road. 2. The off site improvements that RBK should seek contributions for as community benefits should include; • Improvements of the public right of way between West Park and Chalky Lane with the creation of a cycle track. • Cycle track in Rushett Lane to link the cycle track to be built in Christ Church Road as part of the Hospital Cluster highway improvements with the A243 where TfL are proposing improvements for cyclists.

- A10 - 1098Z

• Street lighting in Rushett Lane. Lighting in Christ Church Road is to be improved with funding from the hospital cluster highway improvements. 3. TfL will seek a contribution for Malden Rushett crossroads improvements. 4. RBK would like to see stronger public transport links between Chessington and the Hospital Cluster and West Park. Transport for London • TfL are concerned that traffic from the development will cause further delays at a junction that is already subject to long queues on the B280 and at a junction that has a poor accident record. • The proposed development is a car orientated development on the edge of Epsom and Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames, which has indirect access to a major junction at Malden Rushett on the TLRN. This junction has a long history of queues and accidents and any significant change over existing will cause greater delays than already experienced. If TfL is to improve the performance of the nearby Malden Rushett junction then it will have to make a substantial investment and the developer should make a contribution. This contribution should be at least £85,000. • TfL Street Management therefore recommends that Royal Borough of Kingston object to the proposals unless a significant contribution towards the cost of improving the Malden Rushett junction is included in any S106 Agreement settlement. Letters of objection received from a resident of Leatherhead Road, Malden Rushett and Malden Rushett Residents Association on the following grounds; • Statement that there will be a decrease in road traffic is incorrect as West Park has not been used as a 2000 bed hospital for many years and in any case was never used as a General Hospital. • Incorrect peak hour flows used. Traffic studies were undertaken before many of the new residential properties in the area were occupied. A further traffic assessment and impact study is required using up to date data at Malden Rushett and Chessington Road/Moor Lane/Bridge Road. • Development will not benefit local residents. • The new housing developments in Epsom have overloaded services such as doctors, dentists and other agencies. The proposals make no provision for services for the local community. • Lack of facilities will result in heavy reliance on car journeys. • There is no infrastructure to support this development in this Borough. Malden Rushett crossroads is already overloaded and is an accident black spot. Queries whether the crossroads will be improved and how this is to be financed. • Inappropriate and out of keeping in the Green Belt. Would adversely affect views from this Borough. • Likely that the emergency access will be used by residents from the development on a daily basis. • Limited cross boarder co-operation between authorities so lack of consideration of wider implications of development. • Loss of wildlife. - A11 - 1098Z

South of the Borough Neighbourhood Planning Sub Committee Strongly object to the planning application for the redevelopment of West Park Hospital on the following grounds; • The proposals would exacerbate existing pressures on the road network in Malden Rushett and Chessington Road/Moor Lane/Bridge Road, would not provide a sustainable form of development and would not provide adequate infrastructure. The large amount of development that has already occurred in the Epsom Cluster area has already placed unacceptable pressures on the Chessington area.

Background 1 This Council has been re-consulted as an adjoining authority by Epsom and Ewell Borough Council on a revised outline planning application for the redevelopment of West Park Hospital, (their ref. 02/00348).

2 Previous consultations on this application were considered by South of the Borough Neighbourhood Committee on 5 July 2002, Development Control Committee on 3 September 2002, South of the Borough Neighbourhood Planning Sub Committee on 17 December 2003 and Development Control Committee on 29 January 2004. At the last of these it was resolved to object on the following grounds; “1. The proposals would be an unacceptable over intensification of use of the site which would not provide a sustainable form of development and which would exacerbate existing pressures on the road network particularly in Malden Rushett and Chessington Road/Moor Lane/Bridge Road.

2. A large amount of development has occurred in the Epsom Cluster area without the provision of adequate infrastructure which has already placed unacceptable pressures on the Chessington area.

3. The transport initiatives are inadequate with no bus service being provided along Christ Church Road. Increased bus provision would help to reduce the level of car ownership and car trips that are currently generated by the new housing development.

4. A Hotel/conference centre is inappropriate in this Green Belt area.

Please Note Informatives:

Should Epsom and Ewell Borough Council, despite these objections, resolve to grant planning permission, it is considered the following matters should be taken into account in discussion and formulation of an associated legal agreement.

The Malden Rushett junction would need to be improved by the addition of right turn lanes and the provision of pedestrian/cyclist facilities. The exact result of these improvements has not been gauged - A12 - 1098Z

and it is not clear at this stage whether there will be any increase in capacity as a result of these changes.

The developers of the West Park Hospital should make a significant financial contribution to improvements at Malden Rushett junction as well as making improvements to public transport and cycling facilities in the vicinity as well as improving the public footpath that links into this Borough via Chalky Lane.

This would be a good opportunity to; • Provide effective public transport • extend the railway line from Chessington South Station southwards • provide a monorail • incorporate solar power technology • provide sustainable development

A residential scheme such as this should provide community benefits for Malden Rushett.

A significant contribution should be made to Countryside management (to compensate for the significant tree loss that has taken place and additional tree loss that will occur as a result of this development.)”

Site and Surroundings

3 West Park Hospital is situated approximately 1 mile to the west of Epsom close to the boundary with this Borough. It is bounded by Christ Church Road to the south, open country side to the west, Horton Country Park to the north and Horton Lane to the east. Christ Church Road becomes Rushett Lane in this Borough. The nearest residential properties in this Borough are at Glanmire Farm.

4 It covers 66.42 acres, (26.88h) with an estimated 37acres, (15h) available as developable area. When the site was operational it comprised a 2000 bed mental healthcare hospital together with Health Authority offices, pathology labs, etc.

Proposal

5 The revised application is for outline planning permission with only means of access to be determined at this time.

6 Redevelopment would comprise the following main elements; • 350 dwellings to include 40% affordable housing. • A hotel/conference centre • Community Hall • The listed water tower retained and converted into residential units. Retention and reuse of a number of former ward buildings. • Open space and landscaping.

- A13 - 1098Z

• Main access on to West Park Road and emergency only access to Christ Church Road.

Policy background

7 The site is in the Green Belt but is considered to be a major developed area in accordance with PPG2 ‘Green Belts’. The Epsom & Ewell Borough Local Plan identifies it as a ‘major developed site in the Green Belt’. Other relevant policy documents include PPG3 ‘Housing’, PPG13 ‘Transport’, PPG21 ‘Tourism’ and RPG9, ‘Regional Planning Guidance for the South East’. The Planning Brief approved by Epsom & Ewell is also a material consideration.

Considerations

8 The main considerations for the Royal Borough are; • Access • Impact on the Green Belt • Impact on nearby residential properties • Community benefits

Access

9 There are still concerns that the amount of development proposed for the site although it has been reduced and the primary access moved to West Park Road. The Transportation Assessment, March 2005 suggests that the proposal would significantly decrease peak hour flows at the Malden Rushett junction when compared with the lawful use of the site as a 2000 bed hospital. However, the site has not functioned as a 2000 bed hospital for a number of years and unacceptable levels of traffic may be attracted to the Malden Rushett cross roads, thereby adding to traffic congestion in the vicinity with a consequently detrimental impact on the amenities of local residents.

10 The submitted documents also indicate that it is proposed to improve Christ Church Road between Malden Rushett and Epsom Town Centre including upgrading existing footways, improved signage and white lining, and upgraded crossing facilities.

Impact on the Green Belt

11 Whilst the proposed development has been designed taking into account the requirements of both PPG2 and local Green Belt policies, there is concern that the proposals may adversely affect the appearance of this part of the Green Belt unacceptably transforming the currently rural appearance of the area into a more urbanised one.

Impact on nearby residential properties 12 The nearest residential properties in this Borough are at Glanmire Farm and particularly Old Glanmire Farm which could suffer from - A14 - 1098Z

increased noise, general disturbance due to increased traffic on Rushett Lane.

Community Benefits

13 It is considered that the implementation of the development currently being proposed would require community benefits, (see recommendation).

Conclusion

14 It is recommended that Epsom and Ewell Borough Council should be advised that this Local Planning Authority objects strongly to the revised proposals on similar grounds as previously.

Recommendation

That the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames in conjunction with Transport for London raise strong objections on the following grounds;

1. The proposals would be an unacceptable over intensification of use of the site which would not provide a sustainable form of development and which would exacerbate existing pressures on the road network particularly in Malden Rushett and Chessington Road/Moor Lane/Bridge Road.

2. A large amount of development has occurred in the Epsom Cluster area without the provision of adequate infrastructure which has already placed unacceptable pressures on the Chessington area.

4. A Hotel/conference centre is inappropriate in this Green Belt area.

5. Should planning permission be granted, it should be accompanied by a planning obligation including contributions towards; • Improvements of the public right of way between West Park and Chalky Lane with the creation of a cycle track. • Cycle track in Rushett Lane to link the cycle track to be built in Christ Church Road as part of the Hospital Cluster highway improvements with the A243 where TfL are proposing improvements for cyclists. • Street lighting in Rushett Lane. • Contribution for Malden Rushett crossroads improvements of at least £85,000 as required by TfL. • A contribution to Countryside management (to compensate for the significant tree loss that has taken place and additional tree loss that will occur as a result of this development).

- A15 - 1098Z

DEVELPOMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE 23 June 2005

A4 05/12075/FUL 2-6 Vicarage Road, 13-19 Wood Street, 3-13 Water Lane Kingston Upon Thames

REPORT BY DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

SUMMARY

On 20 April 2005 Development Control Committee deferred an application (see report reference 05/12075/FUL and late material) for:

Erection of 9 Storey 180 bedroom hotel with conferencing/banqueting facilities, business centre, meeting rooms (Class C1) restaurants/bars (Use class A3), and health and fitness suite (Use Class D2), with vehicular access to pick-up/drop-off point from Water Lane.

The application was deferred for the following reasons - to allow further negotiation on contract car parking - clarification of information on transport arrangements and traffic impact including servicing and circulation - further consideration of the legal position in relation to linkage with the planning application for residential development on the former power station - further investigation of comprehensive development

It was also considered that both this application and the former power station residential application be presented back to this committee together. This has not been possible due to reasons set out in the report.

RECOMMENDATIONS

a) resolve to agree in principle subject a legal agreement and conditions deferred until such time as a decision is made on the former Power Station Site in Canbury Gardens b) resolve to grant permission but a decision notice not be issued until evidence is submitted to the Council, in writing that a contract for construction works for the entire structure of the hotel has been entered into. c) Resolve to grant planning permission for the Hotel scheme on its merits

In addition, any decision shall be subject to the completion of a legal agreement and the finalised conditions and informatives attached to this report.

- A16 - 1098Z

Consultations

Additional letter from agents on behalf of Fenwick Ltd;

Reiterating previous objections and stating that the use of the Seven Kings car park for contract parking would reduce the capacity of the car park undermining the overall town centre parking strategy and the town’s retail economy. They also consider that visitors to the hotel would still park in Bentalls and John Lewis. They raise concerns about the hotel having no on site parking.

Thames Landscape Strategy – Originally consulted on 23-3-05 with further revisions advised on 30-3-05 and 31-5-05. No response received.

Kingston Chamber of Commerce – support

‘As you may be aware, the Chamber of Commerce has always supported the principle of developing a 4-star hotel in the town centre, which would provide a facility that does not already exist with all the advantages that would bring to the business community. For instance, on a personal level the Chamber always has to use banqueting facilities outside the Borough for its annual dinner. The capacity should accommodate at least 250 in banqueting style.

Our assumption has always been that such a hotel would be constructed on part of the remaining Electricity Generating Board site, where I believe planning consent currently exists for such a hotel.

In principle therefore I think that the Chamber would support this planning application, although the plans and other information supplied to us are not detailed enough to show anything other than the proposed site layout. Kingston, in our opinion, needs a high quality hotel development and if approval is granted to this proposal we would hope that the Local Authority would insist that a 4-star quality hotel is constructed on the site.

The hotel site would need adequate parking onsite to make it a commercial success and so that conference delegates do not utilise other local parking aimed at shoppers to the town.

This does however raise interesting questions regarding the Electricity Generating Board site, which no doubt you will consider when discussing the Vicarage Road/Wood Street/Water Lane proposal which is currently before you.

If I am correct, there is a time limit for the hotel consent on the generating site, which may permit another form of development on that site if it can be shown that there is no demand for such a hotel within a certain period of time.’

London Borough of Richmond – Objection. The height of the building is considered excessive for this site and it is suggested that the site is developed on a comprehensive basis together with adjoining sites at a maximum of five storeys. - A17 - 1098Z

The Mayor of London / Greater London Authority – due to be reported by the Mayor on 8 June 2005. To be reported verbally.

Kingston Police Station – Originally consulted on 14-2-05, further revisions advised on 30-3-05 and 31-5-05. Chasing email sent 9 June 2005. No response.

Introduction and background

1. The main considerations were set out in the previous report to committee and late material. Since that time amended plans have been received. The principle changes to the scheme are a reduction in the number of cycle parking spaces from 23 spaces to 15 spaces, relocation of the refuse arrangements, omission of one meeting room, relocation of the conference and banqueting facilities from the basement to the first and second floors, relocation of health and fitness suite to second floor, reduction in number of hotel bedrooms from 180 to 150 and the remodelling of the 8th floor. A summary of the Transport Statement has also been submitted.

Applicants Plan Nos

2753 D5 Received 16/02/05 2753 D17E Received 27/05/05 2753 A20 Received 07/02/05 2753 D20B Received 27/05/05 2753 D21B Received 27/05/05 2753 D22B Received 27/05/05 2753 D24C Received 27/05/05 2753 D25B Received 27/05/05 2753 D26B Received 27/05/05 2753 D27 Received 27/05/05 2753 D29D Received 27/05/05 2753 D30A Received 27/05/05 2753 D40A Received 03/03/05 3T65029/A/15 Received 19/04/05 3T65029/A/17 Received 19/04/05 3T65029/A/18 Received 19/04/05 3T65029/A/19 Received 19/04/05 3T65029/A/20 Received 19/04/05

Considerations

Contract car parking

2 The applicants have agreed to purchase 100 contract car parking spaces in Seven Kings car park. It is relevant that this car park is operated jointly by The Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames and Norwich Union Life and Pensions Ltd. If this allocation is agreed as part of a section 106 agreement attached to any planning permission, the - A18 - 1098Z

Council is likely to benefit from any payment. The reasoning behind utilising Seven Kings is based on material planning reasons only and are two fold:

a) contract spaces are not available nor are they being offered at the nearest car parks to the hotel, Bentalls A/B and John Lewis underground. In any event, Committee have already indicated their reluctance to allow the hotel to rely solely on these car parks due to the possible impact on the viability and vitality of the retail sector which relies so heavily on these car parks. Seven Kings is the next nearest available car park.

b) Under the terms of the section 106 agreement attached to the Seven Kings Car Park permission and the associated car park operating agreement (dated 13 July 2000; at time of writing this report, the operating agreement is yet to be signed, however, is operating in principle). the Council has the right to nominate 200 contract or season ticket holders ‘from time to time’.

3 The Head of Legal Services advises that if agreed by Committee, the decision to use the Councils nomination rights at Seven Kings would be appropriate because the decision is based on material planning principles and not on any possible pecuniary benefit to the Council. In any event, the applicant has demonstrated that contract parking opportunities are not available in any other public and private car parks in the Town Centre.

4 Norwich Union/Fenwicks have clearly stated their position. They oppose the hotel application and are vehemently opposed to hotel guests using contract spaces in Seven Kings. On this issue, therefore, the decision before committee rests between balancing the desirability of facilitating a quality hotel in the Town Centre and the possibility of jeopardising the retail economy and associated relationships with those partners. In order to inform and assist on how this judgement is best made the following information is considered pertinent.

5 Norwich Union/Fenwicks have a proven track record as valued partners in the Town Centre providing major retail and parking facilities. They are the Council’s partners with regard to Seven Kings and this relationship will have to continue no matter the decision on this application. However, it is important that any decision is based on material planning considerations; whether the transport impact of the hotel would detrimentally impact on that important planning consideration, the retail economy.

6 The applicants have argued that there is sufficient spare capacity in the existing town centre car parks and they support this view by referring to the conclusions of the Kingston Town Centre Car Parking Strategy. However, they now, to some extent, accept that there are unique dynamics surrounding the use of car parks Bentalls A/B and John Lewis and the direct association these car parks have with the retail - A19 - 1098Z

provision in the northern quadrant of the Town Centre. For this reason they have further examined the use of contract spaces having been advised of the Council’s nomination rights in respect of Seven Kings. They have offered to enter into a legal agreement which, amongst other things, would require them to purchase 100 such spaces should the Council agree to exercise their rights of nomination accordingly.

7 Such an agreement would allow variation of this number up and down from time to time depending on usage and a robust examination of how transport patterns may have developed. Most notably the operator will have to demonstrate compliance with the Green Travel plan and Car Parking Agreement. The effectiveness of any such arrangement is essential if there is to be any success in persuading hotel guests to park in Seven Kings as opposed to the more convenient car parks nearer the proposed hotel. Any green travel plan’s purpose, primarily, should be to reduce dependency upon private cars by visitors and staff.

8 The 100 contract spaces is above the maximum parking demand of 74 identified within the applicants Transport Statement and at the lowest range identified by the Council’s Highways and Transportation officers. The previous report to Committee outlined officer concerns about the possible impact of the hotel’s traffic generation on the existing parking provision in the immediate vicinity and the recommendation was only made on the basis of contract spaces being provided.

9 The applicants have also submitted further detailed information from the hotel operator to provide some assurances that peak parking demand in association with the hotel will not clash with peak use of the car parks by shoppers. They state that the conference season runs for 40 weeks of the year and excludes weekends, bank holidays , the month of August and the two weeks over Christmas and therefore avoids the peak times of parking stress in Kingston. They also consider that visitors attending events do not carry large amounts of luggage and many would travel by train. The applicant’s draft heads of terms of a Green Travel Plan are attached to this report. It is considered they would go some way to reducing car use and would direct those coming by car to Seven Kings. However, there may be additional methods/incentives that could be included as part of a green travel plan to ensure the hotel guests are persuaded to park in the Seven Kings contracted spaces. This could, for example include car park tickets being provided by post to hotel guests either staying in rooms or attending functions, at times where stress on parking is at its greatest.

10 It is recognised that the issues raised above may have operational impacts on the running of Seven Kings car park. In addition, for this to work in practice, Seven Kings would have to stay open to the current opening time of midnight to ensure guest have reasonable access to their cars. This emphasises the importance of the working relationship between the proposed hotel operator and the current car park operating partnership of the Council and Norwich Union. It is not - A20 - 1098Z

inconceivable that should that relationship develop, different methods of encouraging hotel guests to park in Seven Kings could be investigated.

11 Overall, on this single important issue, given the contract spaces offered and that a more robust Green Travel Plan is secured by legal agreement, it is considered that the planning merits of the hotel and the associated benefits to the Town Centre in terms of job creation, tourism and conferencing facilities outweighs the potential impact on retail trade. If this application is approved, it is recommended that the Council, as a partner in the Seven Kings car park and as a local authority, should use all reasonable endeavours to ensure the hotel and its transport impact is integrated within the existing transport demands on the town centre without detriment to existing patterns of use.

12 It has been suggested that in order to provide convenient and sufficient parking for the hotel, whilst ensuring this does not detrimentally impact on the retail sector, the possibility of providing additional parking spaces in the rebuilt Bentalls B car park should be investigated. Any such proposal would require referral to the Mayor, who along with the Council also has policies for restricting car use. However, as mentioned above there are unique associations and demands on spaces in the car parks in the immediate vicinity of the application site and it is considered that there is a planning case to be made for enlargement of Bentalls B. It is also relevant that there is still considerable development potential on the remainder of the proposal site and any comprehensive scheme may benefit from centralised parking. In any event, it is recommended that separate to this application, views of the GLA are sought on this issue as part of the comprehensive regeneration of the area.

Comprehensive Development

13 The applicants stress that they have made significant attempts to comply with the Councils desire to foster relationships with adjoining land holders. The applicants have attended numerous meetings with Council officers and other land owners and prepared proposals to that effect at considerable expense. These proposals were not considered viable by the major landowner, and the applicant states that subsequent efforts to arrange further meetings were declined. A comprehensive solution does not look likely at this stage

Servicing and circulation

14 Some concern was expressed at the previous presentation to Committee that the servicing and circulation, given the physical constraints of Water Lane, would be inadequate. Views were also expressed that the main entrance adjoining a car park would not be acceptable for a quality 4 Star Hotel.

- A21 - 1098Z

15 This matter has been re-examined in consultation with Highways and Transportation officers. Coaches could access Water Lane via Vicarage Road, however, manoeuvring may require partial use part of the middle lane. Given that few such vehicles are expected overall and that there is a designated coach space on Thameside, the arrangements for coaches are considered satisfactory. As it has been confirmed that the entire surface of this section of Water Lane will be a shared surface with changes in materials it is confirmed that although not ideal, there will be room for two vehicles to safely pass therefore ensuring queuing vehicles will not back up onto Vicarage Road. Importantly, this will also ensure any plans for servicing any development on the adjoining site via Water Lane will not be compromised.

16 Vehicles including taxis, and car transporting guests will access via Water Lane , drop off at the main entrance, turn on Water Lane and exit back onto Vicarage Road. However, in order to reduce the risk of larger vehicles from being unable to turn in the service area if other deliveries are underway, it is considered acceptable to allow access onto Steadfast Road by a controlled method (for example rising bollard) as part of a traffic management plan to be agreed with the applicant. (secured by condition)

17 It is considered that the design of the disabled parking bays are unworkable. However, further revisions are expected prior to committee and shall be reported as late material. . Linkage

18 Two planning applications have been submitted on the former Power Station Site. One for the erection of a 5-7 storey building with 254 flats, including 80 affordable housing flats, and basement parking for 182 cars (ref. 05/12218/FUL) and another for the variation of Clause 4, Schedule 2 of S106 legal agreement (ref. 95/3354) for the development of the power station site for residential and a hotel, to remove the restriction (reserving the southern part of the site for a hotel for a period of 10 years to September 2006) (ref. 05/12242/LEG). In addition an application to build over the barge Dock for restaurant has also been submitted. The residential scheme has been withdrawn; however the other applications are yet to be determined. The applicants have requested that this hotel application be presented to Committee independently of the Power Station site, in order to progress matters closer to a decision. They state that this would be beneficial in demonstrating to the potential hotel operator (yet to be confirmed) that the Council considers the scheme acceptable in principle.

19 Previously Committee raised concerns that the former Power Station site on Skerne Road/Canbury Gardens could be redeveloped for housing without any planning permission for a hotel on this application site being implemented. In an effort to ensure that this does not occur, the applicant has agreed to enter into a Section 106 planning obligation - A22 - 1098Z

whereby planning permission would not be issued until such time as the applicant’s solicitors have provided evidence to the Council, in writing, that a contract for the construction works for the entire structure of the hotel has been entered into. (Recommendation B) However, the Head of Legal Services advises that there may be circumstances where it may not be possible to withhold such a permission especially if challenged by a third party, for example, for contract reasons.

20 The legal requirement to build a hotel rests with any decision on the Power Station Site and the requirements of that binding legal agreement. It is considered that any planning application for residential at the Power Station site should include appropriate linkage to the Water Lane hotel proposal by way of a legal agreement. This would ensure the Power Station site cannot be developed for residential until building works for a hotel on the Water Lane hotel site are substantially underway. There is therefore no requirement for linkage between the hotel site and the Power Station site as part of this application. The danger of being forced to issue permission on this site is considered slight, and in any event does not impact on the restrictive terms of the extant legal agreement for the Power Station site. (although these will expire on 13 Sept 2006). It is therefore open to Committee to approve this application independently, hence recommendation B and C. Option B of these two is preferred as there will be additional certainty of a hotel being built on the site before a decision notice is issued.

Design and appearance

21 The applicants have incorporated some design changes which, although not significantly impacting on the overall design concept for the site do result in some additional bulk on the 1st and 8th floor. The function rooms have moved from the basement onto the first floor and the meeting rooms now occupy a new first floor element over sailing the foyer on the Water Lane frontage. The proposed 8th floor now has less set back to accommodate bed space displaced from the 1st floor although terraces and planting are still proposed. Overall the basic architectural treatment remains the same and is considered acceptable. The applicants state that these changes are a result of necessary cost savings to secure a hotel use. As part of the cross subsidy argument for development on the Power Station Site, the build cost of this scheme have been examined (by officers and independently by Sustainable Property Consultants) and demonstrate that profit for this scheme is unlikely, if achievable at all.

Section 106 planning obligations

22. A Section 106 planning obligation is sought covering the following: -

• A financial contribution towards sustainable forms of transport and environmental improvements, including public transport, cycling and walking and associated initiatives, in particular, improvements to the

- A23 - 1098Z

environment and routes along the riverside in the vicinity of the Proposal Site and between the river and the town centre. • A contribution towards CCTV or other crime prevention, safety and security measures • The provision of landscaping along Vicarage Road, Wood Street and Water Lane. • Covenants relating to the release of prescriptive rights to light and air in respect of the adjoining site to the west and its future development. • The submission of evidence to the council, in writing, that a contract for the construction works for the entire structure of the hotel has been entered into. (only in relation to recommendation b) • The securing of a Green Travel Plan. • A Car parking Agreement. In accordance with the principles set out in para 2 above

23. The applicants have confirmed that they are prepared to enter into a Section 106 planning obligation in respect of the above matters.

Conclusion

24. As concluded in the previous report to Committee it is considered that the proposed redevelopment of this site as a hotel with Class A3 and Class D2 uses is acceptable. The development would provide a high quality landmark building that would create a focal point within the town centre, appropriate to the prominence of the site, in keeping with the locality, and providing a valuable contribution towards tourism in Kingston. It would also fulfil a long standing objective of the UDP to provide a quality hotel within Kingston Town Centre.

Recommendation A Resolve to agree in principle subject a legal agreement and conditions deferred until such time as a decision is made on the former Power Station Site in Canbury Gardens (Committee has previously expressed the view that this proposal should be linked to the residential proposal at the former Power Station site on Skerne Road/Canbury Gardens.)

Recommendation B Resolve to grant permission but a decision notice not be issued until evidence is submitted to the Council, in writing that a contract for construction works for the entire structure of the hotel has been entered into.

Recommendation C Resolve to grant planning permission for the Hotel scheme on its merits

Any decision will also be subject to the completion of a Section 106 planning obligation covering the matters set out in paragraph 22, the referral of the application to the Mayor of London under the Town and - A24 - 1098Z

Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2000 and the Government Office for London and the following conditions: -

Conditions

Expiry Date

1 The development hereby permitted shall be commenced within 5 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).

Works to Public Highway

2 The building shall not be occupied until all works to the public highway in Water Lane and on the footways in Vicarage Road and Wood Street have been carried out in accordance with details approved by the Local Planning Authority or by the Council as Highway Authority pursuant to Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980. Such details to include the layout, levels and paving treatment of Water Lane and its junctions with Wood Street and Steadfast Road and details of the service yard access and drop off bay. All works are to be to the Council’s adoptable highway standards and shall include any associated drainage works, lighting improvements, landscaping, street furniture, road markings, signage, traffic orders, and any necessary alterations to statutory undertakers equipment. Any widening to the public footways shall be retained permanently available for pedestrian circulation and the widened areas dedicated as highway pursuant to the Highways Act 1980.

Reason: In the interests of amenity, the free flow of traffic on the highway and road safety in accordance with Policy T1 (Transport Safety) of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan Proposed First Alteration.

Pedestrian Visibility

3 By the time the development hereby permitted is substantially complete, pedestrian/vehicular intervisibility splays of 2.8m x 3.3m shall have been provided in each direction where the access meets the back edge of footway, and shall be permanently retained free from any obstruction to visibility higher than 1.0m above ground level.

Reason: To maintain pedestrian/vehicular intervisibility in the interest of highway safety in accordance with Policy T1 (Transport Safety) of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan Proposed First Alteration.

- A25 - 1098Z

Sightlines Required

4 By the time the development hereby permitted is substantially complete, visibility sight line splays of 2.4m x 33m shall be provided in both directions at the junction of the service yard access and drop off exit with the Water Lane carriageway and shall be permanently retained free from any obstruction to visibility higher than 1.0 metres above the surface of the adjoining highway.

Reason: In the interests of vehicular and pedestrian safety in accordance with Policy T1 (Transport Safety) of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan Proposed First Alteration.

External Finish

5. Full details of the materials, colour and texture of the external finish of the building shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development commences and the development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved finishes.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance on completion of the development in accordance with Policies BE11 (Design of New Buildings and Extensions) and STR6 (Conserving and Enhancing the Built Environment) of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan Proposed First Alteration.

Levels

6. 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.

Reason: To ensure that the appearance and functioning of the development is satisfactory and to safeguard the amenities of adjoining occupiers in accordance with Policies BE11 (Design of New Buildings and Extensions), BE12 (Layout and Amenity of Buildings and Extensions), H1 (Protection of Residential Amenities) and T13 (Facilities for People with Disabilities) of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan Proposed First Alteration.

Sound Proofing of Plant and Machinery

7. All plant and machinery shall be enclosed and soundproofed in accordance with a scheme which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such sound insulation shall be provided before the plant and machinery is brought into use and thereafter permanently retained.

- A26 - 1098Z

Reason: In order to secure a reduction in the noise emanating therefrom and in the interests of the residential amenities of the area in accordance with Policies H1 (Protection of Residential Amenities) and BE21 (Noise) of the adopted Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan, now policy MW7 in the Unitary Development Plan First Alteration.

Fumes

8. Before any A3 use hereby permitted commences, details shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority for the effective control of fumes and odours from the premises. The scheme shall be implemented before the use commences and maintained for the duration of the use.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in accordance with Policies H1 (Protection of Residential Amenities) and STR11 (Pollution Control) of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan Proposed First Alteration.

Refuse Storage and Recycling Facilities

9. The refuse storage facilities shown on drawing 2753D21B hereby approved shall be provided prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted and such facilities shall be permanently retained at the site.

Reason: To ensure the provision of refuse and recycling facilities in accordance with Policies H1 (Protection of Residential Amenities), STR6 (Conserving and Enhancing the Built Environment) and MW2 (Waste and Environment) of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan Proposed First Alteration.

Working Scheme

10. 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: (a) provision for loading/unloading materials. (b) storage of plant, materials and operatives vehicles. (c) temporary site access. (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) means of enclosure of the site.

Amenities) and T1 (Transport Safety) of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan Proposed First Alteration.

External Plant

11. No fans, louvres, ducts or other external plant other than those shown on the drawings hereby approved shall be installed without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties and the visual amenities of the area in accordance with Policies H1 (Protection of Residential Amenities), Policies BE11 (Design of New Buildings and Extensions), BE12 (Layout and Amenity of Buildings and Extensions) and BE21 (Noise) of the adopted Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan, now policy MW7 in the Unitary Development Plan Proposed First Alteration.

Floodlighting

12. No external lighting shall be installed without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order that the lighting shall not cause nuisance to nearby occupiers or be a source of danger to road users in accordance with Policies H1 (Protection of Residential Amenities) and of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan Proposed First Alteration.

Landscaping

13. No development shall commence until a landscaping scheme for the ground level and roof level amenity areas has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented within the first planting season following completion of the development and the tree planting and landscaping shall thereafter be maintained for five years to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs which die during this period shall be replaced in the first available planting season, and the area shown to be landscaped shall be permanently retained for that purpose only.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and also that the Local Planning Authority shall be satisfied as to the details of the development in accordance with Policy BE9 (Trees and Soft Landscaping) of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan Proposed First Alteration.

- A28 - 1098Z

Landscaping Implementation

14. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation, and the area shown to be landscaped shall be permanently retained for that purpose only.

Reason: To ensure that these works are properly implemented and maintained and in the interest of visual amenity in accordance with Policies BE11 (Design of New Buildings and Extensions) and BE12 (Layout and Amenity of Buildings and Extensions) of the adopted Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan Proposed First Alteration.

Archaeological Excavation

15. No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme for investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall only take place in accordance with the detailed scheme pursuant to this condition. The archaeological works shall be carried out by a suitably qualified investigating body which shall have been approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: Important archaeological remains may exist on this site. Accordingly the planning authority wishes to secure the provision of archaeological excavation and the subsequent recording of the remains prior to development, in accordance with the guidance and model condition set out in PPG16.

Servicing

16. All servicing shall be from the service area accessed from Water Lane.

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory functioning of the development and that there is no adverse impact on amenity or highway safety in accordance with Policy T1 (Transport Safety) of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan Proposed First Alteration.

17. The car parking, servicing and manoeuvring areas shown on the approved drawing shall be provided with a hard, bound, dust-free surface, adequately drained before the development is occupied for the purpose hereby permitted. The respective areas shall be kept free from - A29 - 1098Z

obstruction at all times, and shall not thereafter be used for any other purposes other than those shown on the approved drawing.

Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the free flow of traffic or conditions of general safety on adjoining highways and that adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring provision is made in accordance with Policy T1 (Transport Safety) of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan Proposed First Alteration.

18 No development shall commence until a traffic management plan including the method of the controlled exit to Steadfast Road shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Cycle Parking

19. Prior to the commencement of the development details of secure covered cycle parking shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, such facilities shall thereafter be permanently maintained and kept available for cycle parking purposes only and free from obstruction at all times.

Reason: To ensure that satisfactory cycle parking facilities are available for occupiers of the building in accordance with T20 (Compliance with Car and Cycle Parking Standards) of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan Proposed First Alteration.

Frontage Treatment – Ground Floor Units

20. Notwithstanding the details shown on the drawings hereby approved, details of the treatment of the ground floor ‘shop window’ frames to the A3 units (at scale 1:20) shall be submitted to and approved in writing before building operations commence.

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development in accordance with Policies BE11 (Design of New Buildings and Extensions) and STR6 (Conserving and Enhancing the Built Environment) of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan Proposed First Alteration.

21. The ‘shop windows’ to the ground floor A3 units shall be maintained in clear glass, with full visibility above 1m from external ground level into

- A30 - 1098Z

the units at all times, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: in the interests of visual amenity and in order to maintain the interest of the frontage in accordance with Policies BE11 (Design of New Buildings and Extensions) and STR6 (Conserving and Enhancing the Built Environment) of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan Proposed First Alteration.

Surface Water Drainage

22. Surface water drainage and source control measures shall be carried out in accordance with details which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development commences.

Reason: to prevent the increased risk of flooding and to improve water quality in accordance with Policy OL18 (Flooding) of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan Proposed First Alteration.

23. No development shall take place until impact studies of the existing water supply infrastructure have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (in consultation with Thames Water). The studies should determine the magnitude of any new additional capacity required in the system and a suitable connection point.

Reason: to ensure that the water supply infrastructure has sufficient capacity to cope with the additional demand in accordance with Policy OL18 (Flooding) of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan Proposed First Alteration.

Disabled Access

24 Notwithstanding what is shown on drawings 2753D20B and 2753D21B hereby approved, details of the two disabled car parking spaces to be provided in front of the hotel shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development commences.

Reason: In order to provide adequate access for persons with disabilities in accordance with Policy T13 (Facilities for People with Disabilities) of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan Proposed First Alteration.

25 The design and fit-out of the accessible bedrooms and ensuite bathrooms, and the design and fit-out of the accessible changing facilities for the health suite shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development commences - A31 - 1098Z

Canopy

26 Notwithstanding what is shown on the approved drawings, details of the canopy including sufficient headroom for service vehicles on the proposed Water Lane frontage shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development commences.

Reason: In the interests of the free flow of traffic on the highway and road safety in accordance with Policy T1 (Transport Safety) of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan Proposed First Alteration.

Restricted Use

27 The ground floor restaurant areas shall be used only within Class A3 of the Town and Country Planning Use Classes (Amendment) Order 2005 or succeeding legislation.

Reason: In the interests of amenity in accordance with the Council’s After Dark Strategy.

28. The areas shown on drawings 2753D24C and 2753D25B for conferencing/banqueting facilities, business centre and meeting rooms shall be used for these purposes only and shall be retained in these uses, unless otherwise previously agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: In order to ensure the provision and retention of an appropriate balance of uses within the development in accordance with Policy PS2 of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan Proposed First Alteration.

Informatives

1. It will be necessary as a result of this development for works to be carried out to the existing highway network. The developer will be required to enter into an Agreement under Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 to ensure that this work is undertaken prior to the occupation of the development.

2. Any vehicular crossing must be constructed and any redundant crossing reinstated as footway in accordance with the provisions of the Highways Act, 1980 by the Head of Highways & Transportation,

- A32 - 1098Z

Directorate of Environmental Services, Guildhall II, Kingston upon Thames.

3. It will be necessary as a result of this development for works to be carried out to the existing highway network in Water Lane and any associated drainage works, lighting improvements, landscaping, street furniture, road markings, signage and traffic orders, and any necessary alterations to statutory undertakers equipment, all to the Council’s adoptable highway standards. The developer will be required to enter into an Agreement under Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 to ensure that this work is undertaken prior to the occupation of the development.

4. The applicant's attention is drawn to the attached guidelines from the Borough Environmental Health Officer regarding possible environmental nuisance caused by the development.

5. The applicant should consult with the Borough Environmental Health Officer to ensure that the layout of any food premises complies with statutory requirements and the Council's standards.

6. The development of this site is likely to damage archaeological remains. The applicant should therefore submit detailed proposals in the form of an archaeological project design. This design should be in accordance with the appropriate English Heritage guidelines, which can be obtained from English Heritage's Archaeological Officer on 020 7973 3737

7. Your attention is drawn to the guidance contained in (i) the Council's publication "Access for All" and (ii) Approved Document M (2004 edition) to the Building Regulations 2000; and (iii) Sections 4 and 7 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970; and (iv) to the Code of Practice for Design of Buildings and their Approaches to meet the needs of disabled people (BS8300:2001) (v) the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the relevant Regulations and Codes of Practice Further advice in this regard can be obtained by contacting the Council's Access Officer on 020 8547 5314.

8. You are advised there are public sewers crossing this site. No building will therefore be permitted within 3 metres of the sewers without Thames Water’s approval. Should you require a building over application form or other information relating to your building/development work, please contact Thames Water on 0845 850 2777.

- A33 - 1098Z

9. The Council’s Access Officer has made the following comments - the provision of two sets of double doors at the entrance is welcomed, and it is assumed that these will conform to Approved Document M to the Building Regulations. With regard to the wheelchair accessible WC on the ground floor, I would prefer to see this laid out using the standard arrangement, with the WC on the short wall opposite the door. Again, the clear length and width should be checked to ensure the cubicle measures at least 1500mm x 2200mm clear of heat emitters etc. Provision should also be made in a proportion of the wheelchair accessible bedrooms for a level access shower, fully fitted in accordance with the 2004 Approved Document M to the Building Regulations, to serve the needs of those disabled guests unable to use a bath. All signage and wayfinding should be provided in accordance with the guidance provided in the RNIB publication ‘Sign Design Guide’.

10. You are advised that Thames Water have raised concerns that the existing water supply infrastructure has insufficient capacity to meet the additional demands for the proposed development and have requested that the development should not be commenced until impact studies of the existing water supply infrastructure have been approved. Please contact Thames Water on 0845 850 2777.

Background papers – Planning file – Held by Neil Milligan 020 8547 5327

- A34 - 1098Z

Development Control Committee

Date of Meeting: 23/06/2005

______

A5 Register No: 03/10215/FUL

Address: CHESSINGTON WORLD OF ADVENTURE, LEATHERHEAD ROAD, CHESSINGTON, KT9 2HS Ward: Chessington South Description of Proposal: Use of 22 acre field for an animal safari including construction of aviaries, animal houses and safari look outs, animal enclosures, landscaping and pathways linking to proposed hotel and remainder of theme park.

RECOMMENDATION PERMIT

Plan Type: Full Application Expiry Date: 30/09/2003 Applicant's Plan Nos:

CL/1507/107 Received 01/07/2003 263/344 Received 01/07/2003 263/325 Received 01/07/2003 263/359 Received 07/10/2004 263/360 Received 07/10/2004 263/361 Received 08/07/2004 263/362 Received 08/07/2004 263/363 Received 08/07/2004 263/364 Received 07/10/2004 263/365 Received 07/10/2004 263/366 Received 07/10/2004 263/367 Received 07/10/2004 263/368 Received 07/10/2004 263/369 Received 07/10/2004 263/370 Received 07/10/2004 263/371 Received 07/10/2004 263/372 Received 07/10/2004 263/373 Received 07/10/2004 263/374 Received 07/10/2004 263/375 Received 07/10/2004 263/376 Received 07/10/2004 263/377 Received 07/10/2004 263/378 Received 07/10/2004 263/379 Received 07/10/2004 263/380 Received 07/10/2004 263/381 Received 07/10/2004 - A35 - 1098Z

263/382 Received 07/10/2004 263/383 Received 07/10/2004 Overview report Received 01/07/2003 Preliminary Operating Plan Received 07/10/2004 Safari Trail Access Statement Received 20/04/2005 Transport Assessment Received 03/07/2003

Basic Information:

Development Plan: Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan Proposed First Alteration UDP Policies

BE11 Design of New Buildings and Extensions BE12 Layout and Amenity of Buildings and Extensions BE21 Noise BE9 Trees and Soft Landscaping H1 Protection of Residential Amenities OL1 The Green Belt OL5 New Buildings in the Green Belt and Metropolitan Open Land OL9 Development Adjoining Open Space PS50 Chessington World of Adventures RL1 Outdoor Recreational Facilities RL9 Tourism and Visitors STR13 A Sustainable Transport Strategy STR7 Safeguarding and Enhancing Open Land STR8 Diversifying Leisure Uses T1 Transport Safety T13 Facilities for People with Disabilities T14 Pedestrian Network

Total Site Area 8.53 hectares Total Floor Area 3065sq m

Consultations (On amended proposals) Highways and Transportation No observations on this individual application.

Tree and Landscape Officer Acceptable; • The small groups of semi-mature trees on the site are not important features. Any loss will be more than mitigated by the tree planting proposed. • Suggest that the Lion House/Enclosure and Clouded Leopard House/Enclosure are moved approximately 5m to the NW to allow a more practical tree planting strip along the SE boundary with the existing service road, to allow adequate planting to establish in anticipation of the Leyland Cypress trees reaching the end of their useful life. - A36 - 1098Z

• Seeks further details in respect of tree protection, layout of services and foul/surface water drainage, landscaping, (see recommended conditions).

Ecology Officer Site has been grazed by horses for a number of years. Serotine bats forage over the site. Concerned about the proportional loss of open pasture to hard landscape and caged areas. Uncertain whether the dung produced by the proposed animals would attract the native species of dung beetle on which the serotines feed, although they are opportunistic feeders.

(Chessington World of Adventures respond that the site has only been used to graze a few horses over the last two years so the levels of dung will be minimal in comparison to Winey Hill which has been used for the grazing of many more horses for much longer. They hope that their proposals will improve the appearance and ecology of the site.)

Access Officer It's a good Access Statement. I would like CWA to take on board just a couple more considerations, (see recommended informative).

Borough Environmental Health Officer The premises is licensed under the Zoo Licensing Act and is subject to regular inspections by a Zoo Inspection Team. Support the use of the 22 acre field for animals, as it would segregate the animal collection from entertainment/leisure activities. The broad principals are supported subject to the submission of detailed proposals and plans and the full involvement of the zoo staff and their consultant vet in the detailed design. It is essential that an animal collection plan be formulated. The zoo’s Consultant Vet is aware of the need to ensure that the design and layout of the enclosures etc. and the zoo operation meets the Secretary of State’s Standards and Guidance on Modern Zoo Practice but the application does not include any report from the Consultant Vet confirming his close involvement with the proposals and professional verification that the application, in as much as it relates to the care and welfare of the animals, meets the Secretary of State’s guidance etc.

(Chessington World of Adventures confirm that the experienced and qualified people have been involved in the design of the safari trail including zoo staff and the consultant vet. A Preliminary Operating Plan was submitted on 5 October 2004 and a detailed plan is being prepared and will be submitted to Environmental Health Officer as part of the zoo licensing process.)

Environment Agency No objections.

Thames Water Require the imposition of conditions in respect of both sewerage and water supply infrastructure to ensure adequate capacity in the vicinity, (see recommendation). - A37 - 1098Z

Surrey County Council Maintain their previous objections in terms of inappropriate development in the Green Belt, impact on open land and traffic impact on surrounding roads. Wish to be involved in any Travel Package.

Elmbridge Borough Council No objections.

KCIL Concerned that the development should meet the needs of disabled customers and Part M of the Building Regulations.

5 letters of objection received from residents of 12 & 16 Almshouse Lane, 7 & 52 Nigel Fisher Way, 8 Foxwarren, Claygate on the following grounds; • Potential noise nuisance. • 22 Acre field should never be incorporated in the Development Envelope and should always be Green Belt protected. • Should the field stop being used for animal displays, all the structures and paths should be removed and the field returned to its natural state. • Contrary to Green Belt designation, integral part of the countryside, unacceptable precedent. • Inappropriate location for an extension to a zoo or theme park in such close proximity to residential properties. Loss of wildlife. • Intrusive location due to the sloping nature of the site. • Additional congestion and pollution in area of inadequate transport infrastructure.

Malden Rushett Residents Association Object; • Inadequate detail of size of proposed structures and locations of buildings to enable detailed comment. • Concerned about increased volume of visitors, traffic management, detrimental effect on Malden Rushett village, loss of Green Belt, disposal of waste, siting of facilities for waste recycling. • Proposals do not benefit animal health, welfare and general well being due to interaction with visitors and the potential dangers to the public.

Chessington District Residents Association Object; This is a major building project in the Green Belt contrary to policy and which would be visually intrusive to users of Winey Hill Public Open Space.

Born Free Foundation Still concerned about some aspects of the proposals (recognise that some of these are not planning matters); • Size of Enclosures Size and heights of the animal areas and enclosures compared with area for public facilities. Inadequate information has been provided.

- A38 - 1098Z

• Siting of Enclosures Smell and noise have not been taken into account in the siting of the enclosures of the big cat species and prey species. Cite binturong next to tigers and lions opposite aviary and spider monkeys. This could cause unnecessary stress for the animals. • Enclosure Design Inadequate detail of the animals’ enclosures and stand –off barriers to ensure that the proposals meet current Standards of Modern Zoo Practice, inadequate planting shown in the enclosures to provide natural environment, privacy, prevent inter- and intra species conflict and to encourage normal behaviour patterns. • Environmental Enrichment No provision. This should be in accordance with current guidelines. • Petting Zoo and Squirrel Monkey Walk Through Potential for risk of disease and injury to the public and animals. (Male Squirrel Monkeys can be quite aggressive). Need for hand washing facilities. • Acquisition of additional animals Some of the proposed exhibits are not currently owned by Chessington World of Adventures so queries where they will come from. EU Zoos Directive require all zoos in Europe to significantly contribute to conservation/conservation awareness. No justification for the inclusion of some of the species on conservation grounds. • Conservation and Education No mention of education facilities or involvement in breeding programmes. • Site of composting area Details required to take into consideration hygiene and odours. • Drainage System Required. • Show Venue Concerned about the noise implications for the animals. (Note: A number of the Born Free Foundation’s concerns are not planning matters but are addressed under Zoo Licensing. Conditions are recommended in relation to the siting of the composting area and the drainage system.)

Following the Born Free Foundation’s press campaign 20 letters of objection have been received from addresses in Brinsley, Cheltenham, Chessington, Chester, Cobham, Epsom, Ewell, Loughborough, Morden, Southampton, Tolworth, USA, and from Marine Collection; • Too close to theme park and busy roads with associated noise and pollution. • Inadequate room for well-being and care of wild animals. • Applicants have poor reputation for caring for animals. • Animal collection should not be added to. • Disregards rights of/exploits wild animals. • Contrary to good animal welfare. • Not based on Animal Conservation. • Safety issues. • Will attract demonstrations.

Letter of support from a Wildlife Journalist stating that there is nothing in the proposals that is objectionable, that the proposals will move animal exhibiting in UK forward and that the existing Zoo is very good.

- A39 - 1098Z

Previous Relevant Applications

98/2146 Change of use of 22 care field for grazing by animals, Permit construction of 3m high fence around perimeter, stock 08/03/00 proof fencing to trees, construction of stables, and To 30/09/09 ‘Tree Tops’ look out platform

Introduction

1. This application was one of a package of 10 planning applications considered by Development Control Committee on 22 December 2003 but which was deferred by Committee for further details of the design, appearance and location of the buildings and operating arrangements.

2. Development Control Committee resolved to grant conditional planning permission for the other 9 developments subject to the prior completion within 6 months of a planning obligation, etc. Progress on the completion of the planning obligation was reported to Development Control Committee on 25 March and 20 April 2005.

3. The further details and information sought by Development Control Committee were received last year and further consultations undertaken.

4. The previous report to Committee on this application and late material are attached as an annex to this report. Members should also refer to the Development Control Committee Agenda for 22 December 2003 for the general consultation responses in relation to the 10 applications.

Site

5. This application relates to the 22 acre field to the west of Chessington World of Adventures Development Envelope. Winey Hill is situated to the west and Shrewsbury House School Sports Ground and Almshouse Lane to the north.

6. Planning permission 98/2146 has been partly implemented in so far as the perimeter fencing was installed.

Proposal

7. This is a full planning application. Chessington World of Adventures have submitted revised drawings showing further details of the design, appearance and location of the buildings and enclosures proposed for the safari trail. They have also submitted a preliminary operating plan to explain proposed operating arrangements and an access statement.

8. As now proposed, the 22 acre field would be divided into 3 areas. An area in the north west corner and extending along the western boundary with Winey Hill would be used for new forestry planting with the objective of screening views from the adjoining open spaces. The - A40 - 1098Z

area to the south would provide an extensive paddock for giraffe, zebra, antelope, ostrich and wildebeest. Two lookouts would be sited to the south of this. Between the east side of the paddock and the proposed hotel there would be a flamingo enclosure with flamingo house accommodated in a cave in an island under the walkway leading from the hotel.

9. The remainder of the field to the south would be subdivided into areas for different animals. These would include compounds for giraffe and other ungulates adjacent to the paddock, petting zoo, enclosures for gorillas, meerkats, various monkeys and big cats and a free flight aviary (1750m²). The compounds would include buildings to house the animals. The area would be serviced from the existing service road which runs along the western boundary of the theme park’s development envelope with a new service track provided between the animal enclosures and area of woodland along the western boundary of the field. Visitor access would be from the proposed hotel area. A series of pedestrian paths paved with porous blocks would undulate between the enclosures. Pergola structures would be used over parts of these paths to prevent views of enclosures. An indoor viewing area would be sited between the gorilla enclosure and squirrel monkey walkthrough.

10. Materials proposed include natural and artificial rockwork, timber and cable stays, zoo mesh and thatch. The enclosures and free flight aviary would be constructed using poles, tension cables and zoo mesh. Enclosures would be separated by rockwork and landscaping. The area would also feature ponds and pools (self-contained to ensure no cross contamination). It is intended that the animal houses will have "green living roofs".

11. The analysis carried out by Chessington World of Adventures for the further information required by Committee has resulted in a number of additional animals being added to the safari trail. To ensure that the animals have adequate buildings and enclosures, there has been an increase in proposed built development over that shown on the original drawings as indicated in the following table.

Structure Previous Now Proposed Net Addition Safari Lookout 60m² 60m² - Animal Houses 680m² 1058m² 378m² Aviaries 534m² 1750m² 1216m² Indoor Public Viewing Area 197m2*197m2 TOTAL 1274m² 3065m2 1791m2 (*In addition a 44m2 indoor public viewing area is included within the Ungulates/Giraffe House)

12. Chessington World of Adventures state that despite the overall increase the revised design will ensure that the animal enclosures will have minimal impact being concealed within the surrounding

- A41 - 1098Z

landscape, that enclosures will be open in character and will provide visitors with clear views of the animals.

13. A preliminary operating plan has been submitted and deals with proposed species, animal husbandry and enrichment, staffing levels, operation of the site, security and safety and waste. Much of this information relates to day to day management of the zoo facility and is not a planning matter.

14. In respect of waste Chessington World of Adventures advise that general waste is taken away by Grundon which operate materials recovering and recycling. Organic waste will be dealt with through a 3 bay 3 year compost system the siting of which is yet to be determined.

15. The enclosures are to be designed to ensure that the animals are contained within their individual enclosures and to ensure satisfactory animal welfare. Chessington World of Adventures advise that all new animal areas will comply with Government guidance on modern zoo practise and EU Zoo Directives and will have to be licensed by the local zoo licensing authority.

16. Chessington World of Adventures propose to create a sustainable drainage system at the Park (as previously advised) with a balancing pond to the north of the site.

Considerations

17. A number of observations made by consultees are not planning matters but relate to zoo keeping which is a matter for the Zoo Licensing Authority. In these circumstances consideration of this application should be restricted to planning matters. The main planning considerations relate to; i) Compliance with Green Belt policies ii) Visual impact iii) Impact on trees iv) Impact on residential amenities/Noise v) Visitor Numbers and Traffic Generation

Compliance with Green Belt policies

Use

18. The site is outside the current development envelope. The Council’s normal Green Belt policies apply. However, the extant permission for the use of the site for grazing by animals with the construction of stables and look out platform is also a material consideration. Despite the amount of built development proposed, the grazing and housing of animals in this area, although associated with a theme park rather than agriculture, is essentially open in character and therefore compatible with the Green Belt. It may also be considered that the safari trail

- A42 - 1098Z

comprises an outdoor recreation facility which is open in character and appropriate to a rural setting.

19. Whilst the proposals involve a number of buildings and enclosures, development is concentrated in the southern part of the 22 acre field. The enclosures due to their method of construction and materials used would appear open. They would also enclosure large areas of natural surfacing and be surrounded by substantial areas of landscaping. The safari lookouts would be open sided roofed structures. A large part of the 22 acre field would remain as open paddock or else be given over to woodland.

20. Therefore it is not considered that these proposals would adversely affect the openness of this part of the Green Belt.

Visual impact

21. The main concern is the visual impact of these proposals on the adjacent Public Open Space at Winey Hill. There is substantial screen planting close to the eastern boundary of the open space. However, there are gaps in places and the planting is mainly deciduous. In order to screen views substantial woodland planting is proposed in the north western and western parts of the 22 acre field.

Trees

22. Although there are trees on the site none are significant specimens or the subject of Tree Preservation Orders. There is to be substantial tree planting. The provision of these additional trees will far outweigh the loss of trees as a result of this proposal. For this reason it is not considered that these proposals will have any adverse impact on the character of the 22 acre field. Conditions are recommended in respect of tree protection, etc. The Tree and Landscape Officer’s observations in respect of the Lion House/Enclosure and Clouded Leopard House/Enclosure have formed the basis for a recommended condition.

Impact on residential amenities/noise

23. The nearest residential properties are in Almshouse Lane to the north. The Caretaker’s House at Shrewsbury House School Sports Ground is some 90m from the north east corner of the 22 Acre Field. 20 Almshouse Lane, the southernmost house in the lane, is approximately 150m from this point. The main concern relates to noise generation. A large mound was built in the late 1990s in the north east corner of the 22 acre field to reduce noise reaching the dwellings in Almshouse Lane. Although a number of the larger animals are occasionally audible beyond the site boundary it is not considered that this constitutes a noise nuisance. Given the distances involved it is not considered that the proposals will generate unacceptable noise levels. Nevertheless, general conditions are recommended in respect of noise generation. - A43 - 1098Z

24. It is estimated that because of the topography of the site, the siting of the mound in the north east corner and the restriction of the development to the southern part of the site, the animal enclosures and buildings should not be visible from the residential areas to the north.

Visitor Numbers and Traffic Generation

25. Although Chessington World of Adventures claim that the package of proposals of which this application forms part will not increase visitor numbers, this application will result in the re-introduction of visitors in the winter. However, this does not warrant this application being resisted.

Conclusion

26. The proposed safari trail is intended to provide the animals with much improved accommodation and a more sympathetic safari setting. Chessington World of Adventures advise that the safari trail would provide visitors with a walk through experience which would be open all year so that the animal collection would be accessible during the closed season, restoring a historic benefit that Chessington World of Adventures once provided for the local community.

27. Application 98/2146 for the use of the 22 acre field for the grazing of animals was treated as a Departure from the approved Unitary Development Plan, with Government Office for London confirming that the Secretary of State would not intervene on 19 February 1999.

28. In view of the increase in floor space now being proposed by Chessington World of Adventures when compared with the original submission, it is recommended that this revised application should be treated as a Departure. Whilst this application represents a Departure from the Approved Unitary Development Plan, it is considered that this can be justified as the proposals relate to a predominantly open outdoor recreational facility involving the grazing, housing and exhibiting of animals, albeit one that includes some visitor facilities such as the lookouts and indoor viewing areas. This is considered to be acceptable in this Green Belt setting.

29. The original recommendation was to grant planning permission subject to the satisfactory completion of the planning obligation required in respect of all 10 applications. The matters specific to the 22 acre field that would have been included in the planning obligation can be dealt with by way of condition. Therefore it is not necessary to add this application to the planning obligation. The recommendation is reprinted in full to include further conditions and informatives, reason for approval and the inclusion of policies in the wording of reasons for conditions as now required by the Town & Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (England) (Amendment) Order 2003.

- A44 - 1098Z

RECOMMENDATION

Subject to:-

• the application being advertised as a Departure from the adopted Development Plan. • the application being referred to the Secretary of State for Direction.

PERMIT subject to the following reason for approval and conditions;

Reason for Approval

The development would not detract from the character and openness of this Green Belt area or the amenities of surrounding occupiers. Accordingly the proposal complies with Policies H1 (Protection of Residential Amenities), BE11 (Design of New Buildings and Extensions), BE12 (Layout and Amenity of Buildings and Extensions) OL1 (The Green Belt) and OL5 (New Buildings in the Green Belt and Metropolitan Open Land) of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan Proposed First Alteration.

Conditions

1. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced within 5 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. Full details of the detailed design, materials, colour and texture of the external finish of the buildings, enclosures, aviary and all other structures hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development commences and the development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved finishes.

3. Development shall not commence until details of on site drainage works and surface water drainage and source control measures have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the relevant statutory undertakers. No works which result in the discharge of foul or surface water from the site shall be commenced until the onsite drainage works referred to above have been completed.

Reason: To ensure that the foul and/or surface water discharge from the site shall not be prejudicial to the existing sewerage system in - A45 - 1098Z

accordance with Policies BE11 (Design of New Buildings and Extensions) and RES3 (Determination of Planning Applications) of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan Proposed First Alteration.

4. Development shall not be commenced until; a) Full details, including anticipated flow rates, and detailed site plans have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with Thames Water b) Where the development forms part of a larger development, arrangements have been made to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority in consultation with Thames Water for the provision of adequate water supplies for the whole development.

Reason: To ensure that the water supply infrastructure has sufficient capacity to cope with additional demand in accordance with Policies BE11 (Design of New Buildings and Extensions) and RES3 (Determination of Planning Applications) of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan Proposed First Alteration.

5. The Lion House/Enclosure and Clouded Leopard House/Enclosure shall be moved approximately 5m to the north west in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development commences.

Reason: To allow a more practical tree planting strip along the south east boundary with the existing service road, to allow adequate planting to establish in anticipation of the row of Leyland Cypress reaching the end of their useful life in accordance with Policy BE9 (Trees and Landscaping) of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan Proposed First Alteration.

6. The safari outlooks, animal houses, aviary and indoor public viewing area hereby approved shall have a total floor area no greater than 3065m2 and shall not exceed 10m in height above ground level.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity in this part of the Green Belt in accordance with Policy OL1 (The Green Belt) of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan Proposed First Alteration.

7. Prior to the commencement of development the following details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details; a) how trees to be retained will be protected to avoid damage during the demolition/construction process including the position and construction of protective fencing b) detailed layout for services (including above ground services) and foul/surface water drainage, (designed so as to avoid - A46 - 1098Z

conflict with trees, shrubs and hedges both to be retained and planted, and provide for their long term retention);

8. No demolition, site clearance or building operations shall be commenced until fencing to the standards set out in BS5837: 1991 "Protection of Trees on Construction Sites" (figures 4 and 5) of a height not less than 1.5 metres has been erected around the trees shown on the approved drawings as being retained on the site. The fencing shall enclose either:- (a) the area described by the limit set out in Table 1 or (b) a radius as set out in Figure 2 of BS 5837: 1991, or alternatively (c) such an area as may have previously been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such fencing shall be maintained during the course of development, and no storage, site structures, parking or any other operation shall be permitted within the area thereby enclosed. Within the fencing: (a) levels shall not be raised or lowered in relation to the existing ground level, (b) no roots shall be cut, trenches dug, or soil removed or drains and services laid, (c) no buildings, site huts, roads or other engineering operations shall be constructed or carried out, (d) no vehicles shall be driven over the area, (e) no materials or equipment shall be stored. and the destruction by burning of any materials shall not take place on the site or adjoining land unless the fires are at a minimum distance from the fenced area of 6.00 metres.

Reason: To prevent unnecessary damage occurring to the trees during building operations, thereby safeguarding the visual amenities of the site in accordance with Policy BE9 (Trees and Soft Landscaping) of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan Proposed First Alteration.

9. No development shall commence until a landscaping scheme including where applicable the retention of the existing trees shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented within the first planting season following completion of the development and the tree planting and landscaping shall thereafter be maintained for five years to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs which die during this period shall be replaced in the first available planting - A47 - 1098Z

season, and the area shown to be landscaped shall be permanently retained for that purpose only.

10. No external lighting shall be installed without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order that the lighting shall not cause nuisance to nearby occupiers or be a source of danger to road users in accordance with Policies H1 (Protection of Residential Amenities) and T1 (Transport Safety) of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan Proposed First Alteration.

11. The rating level of the noise emitted from any plant and equipment within the area to which this permission relates shall be at least 5dBA lower than the existing background noise level at any given time of operation. The noise levels shall be determined 1m externally to any window at the nearest residential façade. Measurements and assessment shall be carried out in accordance with British Standard 4142:1997.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties in accordance with Policies H1 (Protection of Residential Amenities) and BE21 (Noise) of the adopted Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan, now policy MW7 in the Unitary Development Plan Proposed First Alteration.

12. Any broadcasting or amplifying equipment to be installed in this area shall at no time be audible outside the curtilage of the site. Any such broadcasting or amplifying equipment including loudspeakers shall be positioned inside buildings and/or below the sight lines in order to minimise any noise emanating there from reaching nearby properties.

13. Before the first occupation of the development hereby approved, adequate access shall be provided for people with disabilities, in accordance with details which shall have been previously submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order that the proposed building is accessible to persons with disabilities and to comply with Section 76 of the Town and Country - A48 - 1098Z

Planning Act 1990. (As amended) in accordance with Policy T13 (Facilities for People with Disabilities) of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan Proposed First Alteration.

14. The animal safari in the 22 acre field shall be open to the public throughout the year, (except as is required for maintenance or emergency access), in accordance with details which shall have been previously submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To provide an outdoor recreational facility throughout the year and for the benefit of local residents in accordance with Policy RL1 (Outdoor Recreational Facilities) of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan Proposed First Alteration.

15. At no time shall the 22 acre field be used for any amusement park activities and no booths, stalls, rides, machinery or plant to be used for or in connection with the entertainment of the public shall be erected in this area without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: As the 22 acre field lies outside of Chessington World of Adventures’ main Development Envelope as designated in Proposal Site 50 of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan and because such development would be inappropriate in the Green Belt in accordance with Policy OL1 (The Green Belt) of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan Proposed First Alteration.

16. In the event that the 22 acre field is no longer used as an animal safari area, all buildings, shelters, cages and paths shall be removed and the field restored as a natural green field in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the Green Belt in accordance with Policy OL1 (The Green Belt) of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan Proposed First Alteration.

17. A statement of sustainable construction techniques shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority in connection with the development hereby permitted before any development is commenced.

Reason: So as to ensure satisfactory sustainability of the development hereby permitted in accordance with Policy RES3 (Determination of Planning Applications) of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan Proposed First Alteration.

18. No vehicle shall leave the site with earth or mud adhered to the wheels in a quantity which may introduce a nuisance or a hazard to vehicles or pedestrians. To this end an effective wheel washing plant shall be installed on site in accordance with details which shall have been - A49 - 1098Z

submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development and thereafter shall be maintained and used until the development has been completed.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy T1 (Transport Safety) of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan Proposed First Alteration.

Informatives

1. Your attention is drawn to the guidance contained in (i) the Council's publication "Access for All" and (ii) Approved Document M (2004 edition) to the Building Regulations 2000; and (iii) Sections 4 and 7 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970; and (iv) to the Code of Practice for Design of Buildings and their Approaches to meet the needs of disabled people (BS8300:2001) (v) the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the relevant Regulations and Codes of Practice Further advice in this regard can be obtained by contacting the Council's Access Officer on 020 8547 5314 In addition the Council’s Access Officer advises; • The passing/resting places should include seating for people who need to rest at regular intervals • The signage should comply with the guidance in the Sign Design Guide (JMU). • Any kiosk should be designed to ensure that wheelchair users can access the counter/serving point.

2. The applicant's attention is drawn to the attached guidelines from the Borough Environmental Health Officer regarding possible environmental nuisance caused by the development.

- A50 - 1098Z

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

22nd December 2003

L A T E M A T E R I A L

Chessington World of Adventures

1. Further to paragraphs 4.2 and 4.3 on pages B7 and B8 of the Introductory Report, a further letter dated 19/12/03 has been received from the applicants setting out a revised section 106 planning obligation. This can be summarised as follows:

• At the Council’s request, tranches A, B and C as set out in the committee report have been converted into tranches A, B, C and D. Tranche A relates to access improvements as before but more specifically those projects which the applicants will be required to implement and for which they are liable for the full costs. Some of these improvements are specifically covered by the planning applications for access improvements which are set out in this agenda. The specific projects included are the improvements to the bus and coach area, the south car park access and the north car park access.

• Tranche B covers those transport and environmental projects which RBK or Transport for London will carry out where a contribution from the applicants is required. The specific projects included are the relocation of two bus stops, the provision of a central refuge, a contribution towards improvements to Malden Rushett junction, piping of the ditch on the west side of Leatherhead Road between Almshouse Lane and the north entrance to CWOA allowing a widened footpath and cycleway, improved CCTV coverage between Chessington South station and CWOA and planting on Winny Hill.

• Tranche C covers those projects for which the applicants are responsible but where there may not be an identifiable cost involved or such cost is incurred by the applicants and will not require payment to a public body such as RBK. This includes the green travel plan, car park management plan, the animal plan, additional planting and public access arrangements to the 22 acre field.

• Tranche D covers other transport and environmental works which will be implemented by RBK, Transport for London or others to which the applicants will contribute via a general fund. These include improvements to the equine path along the A243, works to Chessington South station including improvements of access for people with disabilities, cosmetic improvements to the station and improved bus and train interchange facilities and a contribution to studies on alternative modes of travel to the site and/or providing links/improvements on the A243 corridor.

2. The estimated costs of the Tranche A works to be fully covered by the applicants as part of their development works are £550,000. The maximum amounts for contribution within Tranche B are £20,000 for the relocation of the bus stops, - A51 - 1098Z

£5,000 for the provision of the refuge, £41,000 towards the Malden Rushett junction, £45,000 for the piping of the ditch, £50,000 for the CCTV and £15,000 for the Winny Hill planting. The total amount for contribution to Tranche D will be £24,000. The applicants have subsequently agreed that sums can be shifted between these headings if not all the sum identifies for each heading is required. If the total sum is underspent, when all headings are completed, then the remainder can be moved to Tranche D.

3. The Tranche A works will be linked to the implementation of the specific developments covered by the planning applications under consideration here and are all expected to be completed within 4 years. The Tranche B and D financial contributions will be made over a 6 year period. In the case of the Tranche B contributions, it is anticipated that the levels of contributions over the first 4 years will allow the bus stop relocations and the central refuge provision to be implemented within that time. Maximum flexibility will be sought for the reallocation of costs between projects, should current estimates of costs prove inaccurate.

4. In response Transport for London have indicated some dissatisfaction that the bus stop relocation costs are not included wi thin Tranche A and that Tranche D does not include a £15000 contribution to Almshouse Lane. TFL also consider that the sum for Malden Rushett junction should be £60000, more should be provided for Chessington South station and for the equine path and commuted sums for maintenance at the north and south car park accesses as well as all of their legal costs and consultancy fees should be covered. TFL’s requirements appear to be in excess of what the applicants are prepared to offer and it will be for them to influence the Mayor of London’s final views on the applications which will be formally referred after this Committee takes its view.

5. RBK and TFL agree that the highway improvements can be phased and linked to elements of the development. It is important that both the south car park and north car park access improvements are completed and a fall back position must be available in the section 106 agreement if particular elements of the development are not implemented. TFL have proposals for a junction improvement at Malden Rushett crossroads which is supported in principle by RBK. TFL is seeking contributions from developments that will have a traffic impact on this junction but the level of funding required means that there is not a date for the implementation. TFL is seeking a larger contribution from CWOA than they are currently offering. RBK supports TFL in the aims of securing significant improvements for pedestrians and cyclists. The minor improvements proposed at Almshouse Lane will improve safety by reducing conflict caused by the marrow entrance into the lane.

6. The applicants have additionally confirmed that the removal of permitted development rights as part of the S106 agreement in respect of tall structures would be acceptable.

7. In a separate letter dated 19/12/03 the applicants have confirmed that application ref 03/10221/FUL for the shallow water area and the beach is now a full application and have addressed satisfactorily concerns raised in para 5.3 of the

- A52 - 1098Z

main committee report on page B25 about the visual impact of the proposed play equipment from Leatherhead Road.

8. Councillors Shiraz Mirza, Martin Blakebrough and Patricia Bamford, the ward Councillors for Chessington South have made the following comments: a. Concern that little that seems to benefit the immediate local community seems to be built into the applications such as a contribution towards the local football club or provision of a revitalised neighbourhood library and community facility. b. Surprise that there is no need for an Environmental Impact Assessment. c. Welcome for many of the additions to the park and the desire to realign the park as more of a family based attraction with all year round benefit to the community. d. Wish to continue to work with the owners of the amenity.

9. In response to these points, matters to do with the EIA are covered in the main agenda papers and the issue of ‘benefits to the local community’ which might be covered through the section 106 agreement have to fairly and reasonably related to the development under consideration which would not seem to cover the specific points raised under 6a.

10.The trees and landscape officer has commented further with doubts about the efficacy of the ‘stabilised gravel’ surface for the southern car parks in terms of visual impact and effect on trees. Condition 2 as recommended on page B17 deals with this concern.

11.The Chessington and District Residents Association have commented further as follows

Re application ref 03/10227 – access improvements

Unambiguous guidance should be provided on which car park is in use and what to do when the north car park is closed.

Re application ref –03/10217 – flying island

Because this proposal will ‘tower some 200 feet above the surrounding countryside’, it will be visually intrusive and affect the privacy of neighbours.

12.2 further letters of objection received from local residents on grounds of noise, traffic congestion, visitor behaviour and possible increase in criminality.

Amendments to recommendations:

13.The following additional conditions are recommended:

A To be attached to applications ref 03/10218 (service buildings), 03/10216 (staff accommodation), 03/10214 (4D cinema) and 03/10229 (hotel):

- A53 - 1098Z

Condition : Details of a sustainable drainage system shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority before any part of the development hereby approved commences. The approved details shall be fully implemented before use of the development hereby permitted commences and shall thereafter be retained in use for so long as the development hereby permitted remains in existence.

Reason : So as to ensure satisfactory sustainability of the development hereby permitted.

B To be attached to all applications

Condition : A statement of sustainable construction techniques shall be submitted to the local planning authority in connection with the development hereby permitted before any development is commenced.

Reason : So as to ensure satisfactory sustainability of the development hereby permitted.

Condition : Details of wheelwashing arrangements for vehicles leaving the site in connection with the construction of the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority before any part of the development is commenced and the approved arrangements shall be fully operational throughout the period of construction.

Reason : So as to ensure satisfactory conditions on the adjoining highway.

C To be attached to all applications

All resolutions to approve applications will be subject to statutory referral to the Mayor of London under the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2000.

- A54 - 1098Z

Development Control Committee

Date of Meeting: 22/12/03 ______

B11 PROJECT 11 Animal Safari

RECOMMENDATION PERMIT

Plan Type: Full Application Date of Validation: 03/07/03 Applicant's Plan Nos: 236-344 Received 01/07/03 236-346 Received 01/07/03 263/325 Received 01/07/03 Overview report Received 01/07/03 Transport Assessment Received 03/07/03 CL/1507/107 site plan Received 01/07/03 236-345A Received 18/11/03 263/347A Received 18/11/03 263/348A Received 18/11/03 263/353 Received 18/11/03 Photographs Received 18/11/03 Access Statement Received 30/09/03

Basic Information:

Approved Development Plan: Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan Policies: UDP Policies See original introductory report

Total Site Area: 8.53h Total Floor Area: 1274 sq m

1. South of the Borough Neighbourhood Committee • Welcome proposal for public access in the closed season. • Essential that this is accessible to all. - A55 - 1098Z

• Concerned about security and intrusion into the 22 acre field from Winey Hill for the safety of both people and the animals. Good security boundary treatment/CCTV/infra red cameras needed. • Important that the animals are housed and cared for to the highest standards and that best practice is followed.

2. Borough Environmental Health Officer The Zoo Inspection Team carried out a special inspection of the site on Monday 20th. 1. The team noted positive improvements in the way the zoo was being operated and the enthusiasm of staff and were impressed by the high standard of animal health and care. 2.The team discussed the proposals for the use of the 22 acre field and entirely support the use of the area for animals and consider it essential for the long term viability of a collection at Chessington. 3. However it is considered essential that, with the exception of the sea lions, the reptile house and the present bird garden, the 22 acre field be used for all the remaining species that are kept at Chessington. 4. There must be no fragmentation of the animal collection. 5. An animal collection plan must be formulated.

3. Tree & Landscape Officer On revisions, no objections subject to conditions.

Introduction

11.1 Chessington World of Adventures have submitted further correspondence, revised drawings and photographs.

11.2 In order to screen the site from adjacent land, Chessington World of Adventures are intending to attach willow hurdles to the existing security fence along the western boundary of the 22 acre field. They state that a number of the animal ‘houses’ will have green roofs.

11.3 In respect of security Chessington World of Adventures remind Members that the new security fence along the western boundary of the 22 acre field has proved very successful in preventing intrusion.

11.4 They have also submitted photographs of San Diego Zoo to show the type of animal enclosures they intend to provide in the 22 acre field.

Conclusion

11.5 It is considered that the additional information that has been provided is helpful. The previously recommended conditions have been reconsidered It is recommended that Condition 5 is omitted and that a surface water drainage works and further conditions are added.

ALTERATIONS TO RECOMMENDATION

5. Omit, (duplication with Condition 9) - A56 - 1098Z

13. Surface water drainage works and source control measures shall be carried out in accordance with details which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development commences.

Reason: To prevent the increased risk of localised flooding to improve water quality.

14. The structures and buildings hereby approved shall have a total floor area no greater than 1274 sq.m, and shall not exceed 7.5m in height above ground level.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

- A57 - 1098Z

Development Control Committee

Date of Meeting: 23/10/03

______

PROJECT 11 SAFARI TRAIL

A10 Register No: 03/10215/FUL

RECOMMENDATION PERMIT

Plan Type: Full Application Date of Validation: 03/07/03 Applicant's Plan Nos: 236-344 Received 01/07/03 236-345 Received 01/07/03 236-346 Received 01/07/03 263/325 Received 01/07/03 263/347 Received 01/07/03 263/348 Received 01/07/03 Overview report Received 01/07/03 Transport Assessment Received 03/07/03 CL/1507/107 site plan Received 18/09/03 Access Statement Received 30/09/03

Basic Information:

Approved Development Plan: Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan Policies: UDP Policies See main introductory report

Total Site Area: 8.53h Total Floor Area: 1274 sq m

- A58 - 1098Z

Consultations Access Officer (See recommended informative).

Tree Officer No objection subject to detailed plans showing impact of the proposals on existing trees and a full landscape scheme. Large shade providing trees should be planted in the area.

Borough Environmental Health Officer Zoo Licensing • The premises is licensed under the Zoo Licensing Act and subject to regular inspections by a Zoo Inspection Team. • It is a requirement of the licence that the animals are segregated from the entertainment rides and activities. • At the time of the last major inspection there were 13 animal areas, (bird garden, monkey walk, peccary, tapir and capybara, zebra, penguins, gorillas, terrapins, sea lions, carnivores, meerkats, otters and reptile house). It was understood that a review of the animal collection would be undertaken and an animal collection plan produced. • It is unclear what animals will continue to be exhibited and where. The proposals have not been discussed with the Council as Zoo Licensing Authority or Zoo Inspection Team, (next visit scheduled for the autumn). • Zoo inspection team would have no objection to the use of the 22 acre field for the use of animals provided effective segregation is provided between the animals and entertainment rides and activities and subject to the enclosures, etc. meeting licensing standards. • The Inspection Team is likely to report adversely if as a result of the various proposals, the animal collection was fragmented throughout the park and there was no coherent purpose behind the collection. • Suggests that the applicants submit an animal collection plan clarifying the future of the collection at Chessington.

Thames Water No objections.

Environment Agency No objections.

Elmbridge Borough Council No objections but would not wish to see any further significant built development beyond that now proposed on this open part of the site.

Born Free Foundation Object; • Inadequate detail about the species, species/mix, enclosures, stand-off barriers, environmental enrichment for the animals, fence and boundary

- A59 - 1098Z

specifications, disease transmission. All these aspects must be addressed to ensure that the animals will have a high quality environment. • Concerned about the number of animals the applicants hope to display in this relatively small space and about compliance with the Secretary of State’s Standards of Modern Zoo Practise (DETR 2000). Queries whether the site is suitable for the keeping of Zoo animals in respect of existing vegetation. Considers the applicants have done insufficient research. • Queries Chessington World of Adventures’ purpose in keeping animals. Currently offer very little in the way of education or conservation. • Queries what consideration has been given to aspects of opening the Safari Trail all year round in respect of the welfare of the animals and to protect them from vandalism.

2 letters have also been received from residents of Edinburgh and Leeds objecting to these proposals on the same grounds as the Born Free Foundation.

Letters of objection received from occupiers of 16 Almshouse Lane, 35 Charles Babbage Close; • Greatly extends the area of the previous zoo to the edge of playing fields and large areas of housing. • Increased noise closer to housing from the wild animals. • Risks associated with holding wild animals. • Not happy about such a use of a Green Belt field. If permitted it should be subject to the strictest conditions. It should be established that if the applicants no longer want to use the field as an animal safari area, all buildings, shelters, cages and paths should be removed and the field restored as a natural green field. This should not be taken as precedent for further unacceptable development in the Green Belt.

Previous Relevant Applications 98/214 Change of use of 22 care field for grazing by animals, Permit construction of 3m high fence around perimeter, stock 08/03/00 proof fencing to trees, construction of stables, and ‘Tree To Tops’ look out platform 30/09/09

Site 11.1 This application relates to the 22 acre field to the west of Chessington World of Adventures’ Development Envelope. Winey Hill is situated to the west and Shrewsbury House School Sports Ground and Almshouse Lane to the north.

11.2 Planning permission 98/2146 has been partly implemented in so far as the perimeter fencing was installed. It should be noted that this application was referred to the Secretary of State as a Departure and that the Government Office for London advised that they had no objections to the proposals on 19 February 1999.

Proposal 11.3 This is a full application. The proposal is for the use of the 22 acre field for an animal safari, including the construction of an aviary (534m²), - A60 - 1098Z

animal enclosures (680m²) and look outs (60m²). Landscaping would include dry moats, fencing, new planting, water features and a number of pathways linking the site to the proposed hotel and the remainder of the theme park.

11.4 Chessington World of Adventures explain that the animal collection at Chessington World of Adventures has been a key feature of the park for many years. Whilst the care of the animals is to a very high standard, there is a general negative public perception about keeping animals in cages. The proposed safari trail is intended to provide the animals with much improved accommodation and a more sympathetic safari setting. Where possible dry moats and water bodies will be used to contain the animals rather than fences. The safari trail would provide visitors with a walk through experience which would be open all year so that the animal collection would be accessible during the closed season, restoring a historic benefit that Chessington World of Adventures once provided for the local community.

Considerations 11.5 The main considerations relate to; i) Compliance with Green Belt policies ii) Visual impact iii) Impact on trees iv) Impact on residential amenities/Noise v) Visitor Numbers and Traffic Generation

Compliance with Green Belt policies 11.6 The site is outside the current development envelope. The Council’s normal Green Belt policies apply. However, the extant permission for the use of the site for grazing by animals with the construction of stables and look out platform is also a material consideration. The grazing and housing of animals in this area, although associated with a theme park rather than agriculture, is essentially open in character and therefore compatible with the Green Belt. It may also be considered that the safari trail comprises an outdoor recreation facility which is open in character and appropriate to a rural setting.

11.7 The amount of built development appears large. However, the aviary would have the appearance of an apparently open structure. The individual animal enclosures would be appropriate in scale to a rural setting and it is intended that they would be largely concealed by landscaping. The safari lookouts would be open sided roofed structures. Therefore it is not considered that these structures would adversely affect the openness of this part of the Green Belt.

Visual impact 11.8 The main concern is the visual impact of these proposals on the adjacent Public Open Space at Winey Hill. There is substantial screen planting close to the eastern boundary of the open space. However, there are gaps in places and the planting is mainly deciduous. Therefore any development on the 22 acre field and the adjacent part - A61 - 1098Z

of Chessington World of Adventures development envelope would be visible form the open space in the winter months. The drawings submitted in relation to this application show substantial new tree planting along the boundary of the 22 acre field with Winey Hill. It is also considered that planting in Winey Hill is augmented to provide some evergreen screening. This could be dealt with by means of the planning obligation.

Trees 11.9 It is not considered that these proposals need have any adverse impact on trees in the 22 acre field.

Impact on residential amenities/noise 11.10 The nearest residential properties are in Almshouse Lane to the north. The main concern relates to noise generation. A large mound was built in the late 1990s in the north east corner of the 22 acre field to reduce noise reaching the dwellings in Almshouse Lane and appears to have been successful. Although a number of the larger animals are occasionally audible beyond the site boundary it is not considered that this constitutes a noise nuisance. Nevertheless, general conditions are recommended in respect of noise generation.

Visitor Numbers and Traffic Generation 11.11 Chessington World of Adventures claim that the package of proposals will not increase visitor numbers.

Conclusion 11.12 In view of the previous permission for the use of the 22 acre field for the grazing of animals it is not considered that the current proposals represent a Departure from the approved Unitary Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION

Subject to the satisfactory completion of a planning obligation within 6 months , (see general report).

PERMIT subject to the following conditions;

1. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced within 5 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. Notwithstanding the details shown on the drawings hereby permitted full details of the design, external appearance and height of the aviary, animal enclosures and look outs shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area. - A62 - 1098Z

3. Before the first occupation of the development hereby approved, adequate access shall be provided for people with disabilities, in accordance with details which shall have been previously submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order that the proposed building is accessible to persons with disabilities and to comply with Section 76 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. (As amended)

4. Full details of the materials, colour and texture of the external finish of the building shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development commences and the development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved finishes.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance on completion of the development.

5. All plant and machinery shall be enclosed and soundproofed in accordance with a scheme which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such sound insulation shall be provided before the plant and machinery is brought into use and thereafter permanently retained.

Reason: In order to secure a reduction in the noise emanating therefrom and in the interests of the residential amenities of the area.

6. No external lighting shall be installed without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order that the lighting shall not cause nuisance to nearby occupiers or be a source of danger to road users.

7. No demolition, site clearance or building operations shall be commenced until fencing to the standards set out in BS5837: 1991 "Protection of Trees on Construction Sites" (figures 4 and 5) of a height not less than 1.5 metres has been erected around the trees shown on the approved drawings as being retained on the site. The fencing shall enclose either:- (a) the area described by the limit set out in Table 1 or (b) a radius as set out in Figure 2 of BS 5837: 1991, or alternatively (c) such an area as may have previously been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such fencing shall be maintained during the course of development, and no storage, site structures, parking or any other operation shall be permitted within the area thereby enclosed. Within the fencing:

- A63 - 1098Z

(a) levels shall not be raised or lowered in relation to the existing ground level, (b) no roots shall be cut, trenches dug, or soil removed or drains and services laid, (c) no buildings, site huts, roads or other engineering operations shall be constructed or carried out, (d) no vehicles shall be driven over the area, (e) no materials or equipment shall be stored. and the destruction by burning of any materials shall not take place on the site or adjoining land unless the fires are at a minimum distance from the fenced area of 6.00 metres.

Reason: To prevent unnecessary damage occurring to the trees during building operations, thereby safeguarding the visual amenities of the site.

8. No development shall commence until a landscaping scheme including where applicable the retention of the existing trees shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented within the first planting season following completion of the development and the tree planting and landscaping shall thereafter be maintained for five years to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs which die during this period shall be replaced in the first available planting season, and the area shown to be landscaped shall be permanently retained for that purpose only.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and also that the Local Planning Authority shall be satisfied as to the details of the development.

9. The rating level of the noise emitted from any pant and equipment within the area to which this permission relates shall be at least 5dBA lower than the existing background noise level at any given time of operation. The noise levels shall be determined 1m externally to any window at the nearest residential façade. Measurements and assessment shall be carried out in accordance with British Standard 4142:1997.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties.

10. Any broadcasting or amplifying equipment to be installed in this area shall at no time be audible outside the curtilage of the site. Any such broadcasting or amplifying equipment including loudspeakers shall be positioned inside buildings and/or below the sight lines in order to minimise any noise emanating therefrom reaching nearby properties.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties.

- A64 - 1098Z

11. At no time shall the 22 acre field be used for any amusement park activities and no booths, stalls, rides, machinery or plant to be used for or in connection with the entertainment of the public shall be erected in this area without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: As the 22 acre field lies outside of Chessington World of Adventures’ main Development Envelope and because such development would be inappropriate in the Green Belt.

12. In the event that the 22 acre field is no longer used as an animal safari area, all buildings, shelters, cages and paths shall be removed and the field restored as a natural green field in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the Green Belt. Informatives 1. Your attention is drawn to the guidance contained in (i) the Council's publication "Access for All" and (ii) Approved Document M to the Building Regulations 2000; and (iii) Sections 4 and 7 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970; and (iv) to the Code of Practice for Design of Buildings and their Approaches to meet the needs of disabled people (BS8300:2001) (v) the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the relevant Regulations and Codes of Practice Further advice in this regard can be obtained by contacting the Council's Access Officer on 020 8547 5314 2. The Council’s Access Officer advises; • This application concerns premises to be used for the provision of goods, facilities or services to the public, within the meaning of Part 3 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The applicant should therefore bear in mind that from October 2004 disabled people could take legal action against the applicant or any subsequent occupier of the premises if reasonable adjustments to the premises have not been made to facilitate access for disabled people. It is noted that with regard to members of the public, the safari trail consists of a network of paths and some look-out points. It is important that both aspects are made as accessible as possible to disabled people, and that accessibility features are built into the design rather than added at the end of the building process.

• The paths should meet the following specifications:

1. Path surface Hard and firm with very few loose stones 2. Path width 1200mm minimum

- A65 - 1098Z

3. Width restrictions 815mm min width for no more than 300mm along length of path, 1000mm width for no more than 1600mm along length of path 4. Barriers No stiles, steps, fences, hedges etc blocking path 5. Ramp gradient 1:12 max (but only for up to 2m at a stretch) 6. Rise of ramps Where path is steeper than 1:20, level landings to be provided every 5m (or 2m if gradient is 1:12) 7. Cross slope 1:45 max 8. Steps 10mm max height 9. Surface break Breaks in path surface as in boardwalks, grates, grills etc to be no more than 12mm measured in direction of travel along path 10. Clear walking A tunnel clear of overhanging or encroaching tunnel vegetation and other obstructions should be a min of 1200mm wide and 2100mm high 11. Passing places Passing places to be every 100m along the path. 12. Resting places Resting point to be every 200m along path. 12(a) Each resting point to have a seat or perch placed on surfaced, level ground 12(b) Resting points to be set back from the path and, in addition to path width, be at least 1200mm wide and 1500mm long

• The design of the observation points should enable wheelchair users to gain access to the structure and to see out of the ‘window’. The ‘window cill’ level should therefore be no more than 700mm above floor level. • If the structure is raised above ground level, ramped access should be provided. Any ramp should ideally have no greater gradient than 1:20, and should have suitable handrailing both sides and a 100mm kerb at each edge. If the ramp has a gradient of 1:15, level landings should be provided at 5m intervals. If the ramp has a gradient of 1:12, level landings should be provided at 2m intervals. For further assistance regarding design of ramps, handrails etc see Building Regulations 2000 Part M Approved Document and BS8300: 2001. • Whilst the above is considered to reflect current good practice, it is not possible to guarantee that following this advice will ensure full compliance with the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. 2. The applicant's attention is drawn to the attached guidelines from the Borough Environmental Health Officer regarding possible environmental nuisance caused by the development.

- A66 - 1098Z

Development Control Committee

Date of Meeting: 23/06/2005

______

A6 Register No: 05/12214/FUL

Address: THE BARGE DOCK SITE, DOWN HALL ROAD, KINGSTON UPON THAMES Ward: Canbury Description of Proposal: Erection of "boathouse" building (821m2) over the Barge Dock for use as a restaurant / cafe on first floor with small ground floor reception and improved mooring facilities

RECOMMENDATION

Plan Type: Full Application Expiry Date:

Applicant's Plan Nos: Letter re Screening Option Received 30/03/05 Planning Statement Received 30/03/05 Transport Statement Received 30/03/05 Access Statement Received 18/04/05 Sus constr. and renewable energy Received 18/04/05 statement 2312/A/10 Received 13/05/05 Arboricultural Impact Assessment Report Received 01/06/05 2312/D 02 E Received 01/06/05 2312/D 03 E Received 01/06/05 2312/D 04 D Received 01/06/05 2517/A 12A Received 06/06/05 Flood Risk Assessment June 2005 Received 07/06/05 2005-211/120/01 Received 07/06/05 2005-211/100/02 Received 07/06/05 2005-211/100/01 Received 07/06/05 New Design Statement Received 09/06/05

Basic Information:

Development Plan: Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan Proposed First Alteration

UDP Policies BE1 Strategic Areas of Special Character and the Protection of Key Views BE11 Design of New Buildings and Extensions BE12 Layout and Amenity of Buildings and Extensions - A67 - 1098Z

BE13 Location of Building Plant BE14 Height of Buildings BE19 Areas of Archaeological Significance BE22 Pedestrian Environment BE3 Development in Conservation Areas BE9 Trees and Soft Landscaping H1 Protection of Residential Amenities KTC13 Design Standards KTC14 Implementation of Townscape Strategy KTC15 Building Heights KTC16 Riverside Walks KTC9 Provision of Leisure, Recreational, Cultural and Entertainment Facilities MW7 Noise OL10A Green Corridors OL11 Sites of Nature Conservation Importance OL13 Footpaths and Bridleways OL14 Thames Policy Area OL15 Appropriate Riverside Uses OL17 The River and Water Environment OL18 Flooding OL4 Metropolitan Open Land OL5 New Buildings in the Green Belt and Metropolitan Open Land PS1 Former Power Station, Skerne Road/Canbury Gardens RES2 Planning Conditions and Agreements RES3 Determination of Planning Applications RES3A Environmental Impact Assessment RES6 Provision of Adequate Infrastructure RES8 Community Benefit STR6 Conserving and Enhancing the Built Environment STR7 Safeguarding and Enhancing Open Land STR7B Water Resource Management T15 Cycling T2 Restriction on Delivery Hours T20 Compliance with Car and Cycle Parking Standards T21 New Development and On-Street Parking T22 Contributions to Transport Fund T28 Off Street Servicing and Parking

Total Site Area 812sq m Total Floor Area 821sq m No. of Units 1

Car Parking Required 29 Proposed

- A68 - 1098Z

Consultations Responses in relation to originally submitted plans

Highways and Transportation - • Maximum of 29 spaces required. Recommend relaxation of the parking standards in this instance in view of public parking availability nearby at times required by patrons in the Thames side car park, and the site being close to the Town Centre and a choice of local public transport facilities • Parking Provision. The Transport Statement confirms that no off-street parking provision is to be provided. Consideration should be given to securing an appropriate level of contribution to the transport fund in accordance with Policy T22. • The Transport Statement confirms no on–site servicing is available for the Barge Dock site. No service lift / hoist provided. Applicant should clarify how the Restaurant will be serviced • The doors to the bin store open towards the river. Access to the bins is not possible. A revised drawing is required. • Access to the bin store, store and WC should not be through the public car park. • Subject to agreement with the Council, service vans may be able to use the emergency access gate leading to Canbury Gardens for delivery purposes. • The site is in Kingston Town Centre CPZ area. Outside the application site, waiting restrictions apply in Down Hall Road between the hours of 8.30 am. to 6.30 pm. Mon. to Saturday and between 11.00 am. to 05.00 pm. on Sunday.

Borough Cycling Officer - • Any cycle parking would benefit from surveillance ideally by CCTV coverage (NOTE: CCTV recently installed by Thames side car park) • As site is located adjacent to National Cycle Route 4, RK’s minimum cycle standards should be exceeded for restaurant patrons • There is a desire to have the Canbury Gardens / Riverside path lit to make area safer and more attractive after dark. A S106 financial contribution towards this would encourage people to walk / cycle to the restaurant from North Kingston and the cycle route could be used all year round.

Access Officer - • No objection

Borough Environmental Health Officer – • Suggests conditions and informatives (regarding details of ventilation ducting required, including limit on noise emitted from plant, and impact of noise produced from activities on ambient noise level, the need to resister as a food business, and commercial waste refuse

- A69 - 1098Z

Borough Valuer – • No observations in principle. However, barge dock site has no direct frontage to a public highway. Immediately to south is Council-owned public car park and to east is Canbury Gardens. It is not clear from plans how proposed restaurant would be connected to mains services, it seems likely they would have to cross council-owned land (requiring appropriate easements to be negotiated). May be desirable for a formal grant of access rights to the proposed building. • Not clear what boundary treatment is proposed for eastern site boundary

Principal Environment Officer – • Following Screening opinion undertaken under the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations (Schedule 2), conclusion is that the proposed development does not require and Environmental Impact Assessment.

CCTV Project Officer – No response as yet

Friends of Canbury Gardens - • Object strongly to proposed restaurant of restaurant with bar partly over old coal barge dock but covering an area over twice that of the dock basin • Its size, height (11m rising to 15.5m at town end, height of pitched roof 3 storey building) and bulk would be detrimental to riverside environment of park and out of scale and character to the park and views form opposite bank • Parkside elevation over 300m² of solid construction with only approx. 60m² of voids through arches (18% voids) and 34m long blocking out views across river to opposite bank and casting this crucial entry point to park into shade in afternoon. Would result in strong feeling of enclosure. • Intrusion of town centre type business hitherto stopping at Down Hall Road (a psychological barrier to the town centre environment) • Site lies within visual envelope of the park (within the original boundary of Canbury Gardens, see OS Map of 1898) • Site was transferred to Electricity company (in mid-20th C) who built the dock out of the riverside parkland to provide access for coal barges for essential electrical services, diverting towpath / footpath to the east of line of Plane trees • Current use of barge dock is visually un-obstructive (current railings should be replaced by suitable Conservation Area boundary treatment) • Building proposed on and over the Surbiton Filter Beds was recently refused by the Government Inspector as an intrusion into similar Metropolitan Open Land by the River Thames • Development would encroach over the river contrary to Environment Agency Policy • Traditional boathouses are attractive features of the riverside on the Hampton Wick bank. These are small structures sitting low in the riverside below grassy banks.

- A70 - 1098Z

• Proposal is much larger than traditional boathouses • Proposal has no parking or servicing on site (assume servicing will be from Down Hall Rd) • During evenings Thameside is busy with parked cars. No space for another 180 diners’ cars

Canbury and Riverside Association (CARA) – • Policy OL4 states that “Except in very special circumstances approval will not be given for development within Metropolitan Open Land.” • Para 7.29 of justification to Policy OL5 states “Buildings will only be permitted in connection within the Green belt or Metropolitan Open Land where necessary..” • Proposal would contradict Council’s stated principles which include safeguarding MOL • Restaurant over barge dock is not necessary. There are many restaurants in Kingston, including riverside restaurants (and empty riverside restaurants, including one a couple of hundred yards along the river) • Developer has already applied for permission to build a hotel with restaurants nearby • Council already has plans for improving the gateway into Canbury Gardens, together with the Thames Landscape Strategy, such a building is not therefore needed to provide a boundary or gateway from town into Canbury Gardens • Area is a Site of Nature Conservation Importance (proposal may contravene Policy OL11). No evidence submitted to show how this Policy has been considered or to show the development would not cause unacceptable ecological harm. • Application does not include any evidence that it does not contravene Policy OL17 (a change in land use which leads to a deterioration in the quality of underground or surface waters) • CARA recognises that the site is not currently attractive and would benefit from landscaping which would preserve its open character and respect policies OL4 and OL5 • Welcome guaranteed mooring for the Richmond Venturer, but to allow development on MOL on the river for private commercial profit sets a dangerous precedent which could harm one of Kingston’s most precious resources

English Heritage Archaeology – • 13th to 18th century river revetments have been identified and recorded on sites to south of site. Therefore a potential archaeological interest with proposed scheme. Further plans needed in order to resolve whether there is continued archaeological interest (The required plans have been forwarded) • Should archaeological safeguards prove necessary these would normally consist of design measures to preserve remains in situ or archaeological investigations prior to development, or a combination of both.

- A71 - 1098Z

Network Rail – Have no interest in the site

Ecology and Environmental Education Officer - • The site is located north of Canbury Gardens Site of Nature Conservation Importance Grade 1. The lower path next to the river is managed on a less formal basis than the parkland, and the area immediately north of the Barge Dock is largely unmanaged. This is a pocket of land of semi-natural habitat. It is inaccessible from the parkside and falls within MOL.

• The Barge Dock at present is occupied by the ‘Richmond Venturer’. The boat sits in a sheer concrete sided dock. The ecological value of the Barge Dock as it stands at present is limited although there have been anecdotal reports of water bird activity indicative of species associated with this stretch of the river. Kingfishers, a Schedule 1 species (Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981) have been reported as being active in the area. Prior to a planning decision this would have to be verified by a detailed and timely survey, and mitigation proposals agreed. This survey is required prior to any decision.

• The proposed building would have a small but significant ecological impact on the area with regard to the size and scale of the building. This would be primarily on the area immediately north of the proposal site. During construction buffer zones should be put in place to protect the existing habitats. The covered section of the building would create shade onto the river. This would change the ecological function of the water at this point, and may have an effect on the area either side. Still shallow areas such as these are often places for spawning fish, and other freshwater species that cannot cope with the sporadic fast flows of the river. However, designing biodiversity enhancements into the building and surround could compensate for this.

To include: • Bat access points into the roof voids • External swallow and swift nesting sites • An area of the roof dedicated to being green • Planting schemes around the development to create a natural riverside ‘feel’ using appropriate nectar plant species. • Attach timber fendering on the retaining dock wall to increase aquatic habitat opportunities.

Waste Management / Recycling Officer – No response as yet

Kingston Upon Thames Society - No response as yet Kingston CAAC - No response as yet Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment – No response as yet

Surrey Wildlife Trust - No response as yet English Nature - No response as yet Thames Landscape Strategy – No response as yet - A72 - 1098Z

Metropolitan Police Crime Prevention Unit - No response as yet Kingston Chamber of Commerce - No response as yet Kingston Town Centre Manager - No response as yet

Environment Agency - No response as yet Thames Water – No response as yet Kingston Centre for Independent Living - No response as yet

London Borough of Richmond - No response as yet

A letter of support was received from The River Thames Boat Project: • Proposed secure free usage of the dock for mooring along with improved charity would most welcome. • The mooring is currently in a seriously dilapidated condition. Access next to the dock is particularly good, especially for vehicles conveying people with disabilities, and the location is suited to mooring of the Richmond Venturer. • Proposed improved security, improved paving to dockside and area between road and dock (important for some of those with disabilities), and improved mooring services to the dock are welcomed. Also appreciated improvements to the visual appearance of an important part of Kingston riverside at the entrance to Canbury Gardens, the tidying up of the northern entrance to the dock, and the replacement of rather ugly looking palisade with a suitable building in the form of a boathouse. • It is in the interest of the community as a whole and in accord with public policy that the barge dock should continue in use, but it will not do so for long without redevelopment.

Public Consultation Over 1000 addresses were consulted in the vicinity of the development, including addresses on the opposite side of the river, and houseboats facing the site. The consultation letter advised of three related applications made by the same applicant for Proposal site 1, this application for a riverside restaurant over the barge dock being one of these.

34 of the response letters received commented on this application for a new riverside restaurant and improved mooring facilities and security of mooring for the Richmond Venturer, all raising issues of concern and / or objecting. 15 of these objection letters are from addresses on the opposite side of the river (including the houseboats) opposite the application site. The following is a summary of the issues of concern raised:

Responses from addresses on opposite side of river (Richmond) • Object strongly due to noise disturbance, exacerbated over water, especially late at night, from sound systems and clearing up. Any licence for a restaurant must have it stipulated that load music will not be allowed. Also concern about increased disturbance and antisocial behaviour. Concern about building construction noise and disturbance

- A73 - 1098Z

• Height of the proposed building is difficult to judge. Could a pole be erected on site to show height of building • Light pollution from restaurant • Ensure that no overnight moorings are allowed • Diners in proposed restaurant would be able to see directly down into bedrooms and living rooms of houseboats on Richmond side, destroying privacy (NOTE: Separation distance of approx. 50m) • Residents on permanent houseboats cannot just move their boats • Already a large number of restaurants within local area • New Hampton Wick riverside restaurant is proving hard to either let or sell • Riverside A3 premises in John Lewis basement has repeatedly failed as a restaurant. Hard to imagine why another riverside restaurant would be a success. Why not re-open one of these? • Slug and Lettuce is popular but has hardly been of benefit to the area with exterior area suffering • Proposal has no community benefit • No public moorings proposed • Site could be better developed as a crèche, children’s nursery or café with children’s paddling pool / water slide • Ideally the dock would be demolished and land levelled to its pre- industrial level, and replaced by a single storey building using the drained dock as a basement • Building is too large for the space and larger than old wet boathouses along this stretch of the river. They are all set on the bank, not protruding out into the river. Should be moved off river, some distance form the bank. Two storeys is grossly intrusive and not reminiscent of boathouses it professes to emulate • Building would have to be high enough for boat to be moored during floods, and so would have to be very high • Keeping the Richmond Venturer in the dock permanently has no intrinsic merit. Aims of charity are of merit, but no need for it to be based in Kingston. The charity is a Richmond entity. A location at the newly enhanced Teddington lock would be just as good with the same easy access. Finding a home for such a large craft is difficult but not impossible • Not clear how restaurant and existing barge use could work in conjunction • Rights of an ordinary citizen takes precedence over prospect of commercial gain by developer • As site is within a Conservation Area, the heritage of the Thames river front must remain paramount • More visitors using river would threaten wildlife that shelters in pontoons on riverbank (Richmond side), including cormorants, crested grebes, coots (and a heron which for last 2 years has lived in the barge dock to be developed) • Welcome new boathouse in place of existing mooring but object to restaurant above it, especially due to height (would result in loss of privacy) - A74 - 1098Z

• Strongly object to unjustified building of further catering establishments • If barge dock has MOL status presumably the council will only allow “river-related” building if any on this site. Do not consider a restaurant to be river-related • Slug and Lettuce is an eye sore, harming views along the river. We do not need another restaurant so close on MOL and in a Conservation Area • Restaurants can be in a shopping centre, on a road, etc, but proposal would compromise access to the barge dock and potential use of this part of river • Proposed building would visually cut entrance to Canbury Gardens off from river and narrow and enclose this entrance and would cut off river from Canbury Gardens and its trees • Boathouses are built gable end on to the river and do not cut off views. This restaurant is to be built sideways on and at 30 metres long would be a dominant and view-blocking feature

Responses from streets around the site • Mooring facility could be improved but not by sacrificing another piece of open river bank (as Slug and Lettuce) • Object to a further building over the river, on Metropolitan Open Land and in a Conservation Area • River should be kept as public space and not built on • Kingston has enough restaurants along the river • Antisocial behaviour of visitors to existing restaurants / bars • Noise from large scale building work in area • Empty restaurants within a few hundred yards of the site • Restaurant project may fail leaving river with an eyesore • Area should be landscaped and improved, but no restaurant • Would destroy the character of the river front and ruin pleasant views • Plenty of land elsewhere for restaurants • Would set an undesirable precedent for more river building • Would remove enjoyment of the river from the people • A restaurant on site of barge dock is a good idea, but should also be at ground floor to provide some outside space for passers by. Otherwise, closed off nature of building would provide no riverside ambiance (as Slug and Lettuce) • Improved mooring would provide permanent and temporary berths as it would increase the attraction for any residents and improves ambience of area • This overbuilding is destructive to the future of one of potentially the most important and aesthetic parts of Kingston

The application as originally submitted was referred to the Kingston Town Planning Sub-Committee on 8th June for views. The committee resolved that the Development Control committee be advised that: • Whilst the “Victorian” feel of the proposal is in keeping with Canbury Gardens this proposal:

- A75 - 1098Z

• is too large in scale and does not enhance the entrance to Canbury Gardens • there is a need to look at the area as a whole to see what the possibilities are for a development which gives an extension of facilities of the town – such as a restaurant into the Canbury area, which now has many more residents – but does not detract in any way from or encroach upon Canbury Gardens • there should be no encroachment on trees in Canbury Gardens • the Barge dock area and the Riverside site need to be looked at together.

Responses to the Revised Scheme The application was revised by slight amendments to the position of the two storey part of the building and details of the proposed building, the submission of a flood risk assessment and an arboriculture (tree) report. The following is a summary of the responses received in relation to the revised submission. Any further responses received will be reported to committee as later material:

Borough Valuer (to revised scheme) – No observations on revised application additional to observations relating to original scheme.

Trees and Landscape (to revised scheme) – • As per previous response, concern with the proposed building is that the north-east elevation of the proposed building has a relatively poor relationship to the adjoining London Plane (identified as Tree 15 in the Arboricultural Impact Assessment Report). • Concern is not one of direct damage to the tree by the construction process but rather that the proximity of the lower lateral limbs to the main window in this elevation will result in future pressure for significant pruning. This tree is the first in a line of mature Planes running along the riverside of Canbury Gardens: the trees are an outstanding landscape feature and it is vital that they are retained unharmed. In order to achieve a good relationship to the tree, building should preferably be moved back to allow approximately 5 metres greater clearance from the tree. • Further detail is required in addition to the above amendment • Should the proposals be considered acceptable in their current form then the following detail will be required: • detail as to how trees to be retained will be protected to avoid damage during the demolition / construction process. The construction and position of protective fencing should be clearly shown on the site plan. • detailed layout for services (including above ground services) and foul/surface water drainage. The layout should be designed so as to avoid conflict with trees, shrubs and hedges both to be retained and planted, and provide for their long term retention. • detail of any proposed alterations in existing ground levels or surfacing around the proposed building.

- A76 - 1098Z

Responses from streets around the site to revised scheme (1 letter of objection) • Application contravenes Policy OL4 “Except in very special circumstances approval will not be given for development within Metropolitan Open Land”. Restaurant does not fall into any of the examples of exceptional circumstances • Contravenes Policy OL5 “Buildings will only be permitted within Green Belt or Metropolitan Open Land where necessary. Can see no reason why it is necessary to build a restaurant over the barge dock • Area is a site of Nature Conservation Importance. Concerned the proposal may contravene Policy OL11, as “The council will not allow development proposals which would cause unacceptable harm to sites of... Nature Conservation Importance”. No evidence has been submitted with the application to shown that this policy has been considered, or to show that the development will not cause unacceptable harm. • To allow development on MOL for private commercial profit and to allow development over the river, contrary to the council stated guiding principles would set a dangerous precedent which could irrevocably harm one of Kingston’s most precious assets • Site would benefit from landscaping, which would preserve its open character • Welcome continued access to the mooring for the Richmond Venturer

Responses from addresses on opposite side of river, including houseboats (Richmond) to revised scheme (1 letter of objection) • Proposal does not seem to comply with Thames Landscape Strategy • Welcome construction of boathouse in place of existing mooring but object to proposed restaurant above it • Height of proposed building would result in overlooking of flats on opposite riverbank. • Impact of noise from restaurant on residential amenities • Overnight moorings should not be permitted • Possible damage to trees near the river as occurred with last development

History

95/3394 “Erection of 8 x 4-bed houses, 44 x 3-storey Permit houses, 6 x 3-bed flats, 101 x 2-bed flats & 18 x 1- subject to bed flats (FULL), 150 bed hotel (OUTLINE), legal basement parking. Alterations to Skerne Rd – new agreement access & assoc roads & car parking.” 13/9/96 Hybrid Planning Application (Full for Housing proposal / Outline for Hotel proposal)

The outline permission (95/3394) for an hotel showed a restaurant over the barge dock, linked to the hotel by means of a bridge link, for illustrative purposes only.

- A77 - 1098Z

Site and surroundings

1. The application site (of approx. 612m²) lies in the south west corner of the Former Kingston Power Station site, on the river frontage, in the northern part of Kingston Town Centre. The site now consists of a barge dock which, when operational, had a 1920s / 1930s conveyor building of approx. 5 storeys spanning over the dock (for approx. 60 years). The dock was used for coal deliveries by boat to the Power Station. From the dock the coal was transported on a conveyor belt across a service road and the southern end of Canbury Gardens to the coal store on the power station site where it was deposited. The Power Station buildings were demolished in the mid-1980s.

2. The barge dock has been occupied for some nine years by a vessel (The Richmond Venturer) which houses a registered charity (the River Thames Boat Project) which operates as an environmental educational facility for elderly people, people with disabilities, and disadvantaged young people. For security reasons relating to the Richmond Venturer, unattractive but functional 2m high palisade fencing has been erected around the dock.

3. The council-operated Thames Side car park is directly to the south of the barge dock (and is approximately 0.3m lower, being separated by a low wall with security fencing on top). Canbury Gardens lies to the north east and the River Thames to the west. To the east is the Power Station’s old service road. Directly to the north of the site is a TPO London Plane tree.

4. The site has many UDP designations, including Proposal Site 1, Strategic Area of Special Character (Key Views), Thames-side Area of Special Character, Thames Policy Area, Area of Archaeological Significance, Riverside North Conservation Area, and Metropolitan Open Land. The site has a Green Corridor, and major footpath and cycle route allocations. The site is adjacent to a Site of Nature Conservation Importance (Grade 1, site of Metropolitan Importance) which is the River Thames. To the north of the site is a TPO London Plane tree.

The Proposal

5. The proposed development is the erection of “boathouse” building (821m2) over the Barge Dock for use as a restaurant on first floor with small ground floor reception and improved mooring facilities for the River Thames Boat Project, which is currently moored on the site, but has no security of mooring. The proposal offers security of mooring for the River Thames Boat Project boat.

6. The proposed restaurant would be rectangular (longer sides running north – south) and mostly single storey (at first floor level). It would be constructed over the barge dock, with caste iron colonnades supporting the building along the east, west and south sides of the barge dock. - A78 - 1098Z

The east and west elevations of the building would be approx. 33m and 32m long, the north and south approx. 18m wide. The building would be 32m long facing the river, at a height of 11.4m, with a pitched roof and large glazed feature dormers to the first-floor restaurant facing the river. Small vented dormers are proposed along the eastern roofslope to provide ventilation to the kitchen and toilets.

7. At ground floor level the proposed building would house a bin store and electricity and water supply for the Richmond Venturer mooring. The applicant has offered permanent mooring to the charity boat. This could be secured by way of a legal agreement. Provided there is sufficient clearance to allow for the Richmond Venturer to moor during times of flood (3.7m), the boat would be able to continue mooring in the dock.

8. The ground floor would also house the restaurant’s bin store and reception, with a lift and stairs up to the first floor restaurant. The first floor, within a pitched roof would house a dining area of 327m², with a bar (35m²), kitchen, storeroom, office, and toilets (including a disabled toilet). An external fire escape is proposed on the north-east corner of the site, accessible from Canbury Gardens.

9. The building takes design cues from the ornate Victorian boathouses, supported on iron colonnades. For security reasons relating vandalism of, and unauthorised access to the Richmond Venturer, the elevations on the riverbank would have to be secured at ground floor level (glazing is proposed between the iron colonnades to replace the existing unattractive palisade fencing).

10. The two storey element on the south east side of the site would be accommodated in a 15.5m high tower feature, which would mark the southern entrance to Canbury Gardens. The southern elevation of the tower would contain a tall, narrow, arched feature window, with two similar windows to its eastern elevation and a circular feature window in between. The tower would be finished with a cupola.

Considerations

11. The following issues are relevant to the consideration of this application: I. Principle of Land Use II. Scale and Design of Building and Impact on Canbury Gardens, River, Riverside North Conservation Area and Metropolitan Open Land III. Impact on Residential Amenity IV. Highways and Parking V. Trees and Landscaping VI. Environmental Impact / Sustainability VII. Community Benefit

- A79 - 1098Z

Principle of Land Use

12. The application site is part of Proposal Site 1 in the Adopted Unitary Development Plan. This provides that the appropriate uses for the former Power Station site are residential, hotel and associated uses. It states that it is vital that its potential contribution to UDP and town centre strategy in land use, infrastructure and design terms is fulfilled. There will be a particular emphasis on high quality design and landscaping, integrating Canbury Gardens with the development.

13. The Council will expect the appropriate uses to be provided on proposal sites, but inclusion of other uses is not precluded and will they be considered on their merits against other policies in the plan and local circumstances. Their inclusion should not prejudice provision of the appropriate uses. The proposed restaurant use is not one of the listed appropriate uses, but its provision would not prejudice the provision of the appropriate uses.

14. The Adopted Planning Brief (April 1995), which has Supplementary Planning Guidance status, covers the whole of the former Power Station land. It describes that in general terms development of the barge dock should not impinge or encroach upon the actual riverside, although prior to its demolition, the barge dock extended over the entrance to Canbury Gardens forming a “gateway” feature. This gave a distinct boundary between urban character of the town centre and the landscaped appearance of Canbury Gardens.

15. It continues “re-creation of this feature by a development of suitable scale on a low-rise basis would be welcomed. It might accommodate uses particularly associated with the riverside, such as a hotel restaurant.” “Facilities such as restaurants ..and cafes, probably associated with the hotel use, perhaps incorporating attractive sitting out areas at the southern end of Canbury Gardens may also be appropriate”.

16. The site owner is now proposing to develop the nearby associated coal store on the Former Power Station site for residential use, whilst an hotel is now proposed on a town centre site south of the railway bridge. The proposed restaurant would not therefore be associated with an hotel, but would be a free-standing leisure facility.

17. The retention of the mooring was considered an issue in the Planning Brief for the site.

18. Policy OL4 advises that except in very special circumstances approval will not be given for development within Metropolitan Open Land for purposes other than those listed in the Policy, or other appropriate uses which are open in character.

19. In relation to Policy OL4, the unique situation in the borough of this site being designated as MOL actually being over water and the historic - A80 - 1098Z

existence of a power station conveyor building of approximately five storeys (between approx. 1920s and 1980s). The adopted brief identifies this land for a restaurant and café.

20. Policy OL15 “Within the Thames Policy Area development should not encroach into the river.” Restaurant / café (A3) use is one of the preferred uses of sites adjoining the river within Kingston Town Centre. In all case, the form of any development must be appropriate to its specific location.

21. Policy KTC9 “Appropriate Riverside Uses” advises that leisure facilities will normally be permitted in the town centre where they contribute to the character and vitality of the town centre and are in line with other policies in the plan.

22. The 1996 planning permission for an hotel with restaurant on the former power station site restricted the use of the barge dock land to “hotel land” for a period of 10 years up to 13th September 2006. The landowner has applied to remove this restriction on this land, which would be necessary for the barge dock’s proposed use for a restaurant. The application to modify the legal agreement is also on this agenda (05/12242/LEG).

Scale and Design of Building and Impact on Canbury Gardens, River, Riverside North Conservation Area and Metropolitan Open Land

23. Policy OL5 requires that new buildings within Metropolitan Open Land should respect the setting in scale, form and design, and should provide a high standard of landscaping.

24. The proposed building at 11.5m with a tower of 15.5m high would read as an attractive landmark building at the end of Down Hall Road, and on the approach to Canbury Gardens from the town centre, providing some enclosure to the southern entrance to Canbury Gardens.

25. Policy BE3 states that the Council will give special attention to the design of development proposals within Conservation Areas and will permit redevelopment only where the proposed development is of a high design standard and would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the area. With a condition to ensure the staircase is internalised (some redesigning of the north east corner of the building would be required), the design of the proposed building is considered to preserve the character and appearance of the Riverside North Conservation Area.

26. The Planning Brief for the barge dock site states that “a development of suitable scale on a low-rise basis would be welcomed. It might accommodate uses particularly associated with the riverside, such as a hotel restaurant.” “Facilities such as restaurants ..and cafes, probably associated with the hotel use, perhaps incorporating

- A81 - 1098Z

attractive sitting out areas at the southern end of Canbury Gardens may also be appropriate”.

27. Policy KTC15 recommends that in the Riverside, new development should normally be of two or three storeys.

28. Policy OL14 requires new development in the Thames Policy Area to respect and enhance the special character of individual reaches of the river and be of high quality design.

29. Policy BE1 states that the Council will safeguard the townscape of the Thames-side Strategic Area of Special Character by protecting the skylines, character, scale and the quality of major open spaces . Within the Thames-side Strategic Area of Special Character particular importance will be attached to the protection of the riverside character, including the riverbank and adjoining open spaces.

30. Policy BE13 requires new developments to be designed to conceal unsightly structures such as air conditioning plant, fire escape stairs and lift motor rooms. “When considering new development the Council will only entertain applications which conceal servicing equipment and fire escapes within the building envelope, or in locations which are not visible from the ground or adjoining buildings”.

31. A revision to the design was requested to internalise the fire escape, with the end of the fire escape being open onto the eastern edge of the application site. A condition would be necessary for the proposed building to be acceptable in its design and impact on the Conservation Area in which the site is located.

32. A condition regulating materials to be used would ensure that all materials are suitable for this sensitive riverside location with the Riverside North Conservation Area.

Impact on Residential Amenity

33. The proposed restaurant would be sited over 50m from the closest residential properties (including houseboats) on the opposite side of the river. Due to the separation distance there would be no undue loss of privacy or light disturbance to the houseboats moored on the opposite bank. Conditions could ensure that any noise generated internally and by any plant required is not permitted to disturb local residents and users of Canbury Gardens, particularly as noise is amplified over water.

34. In relation to protection of residential amenities, the proposed development would comply with Policies H1, BE12, and MW7.

- A82 - 1098Z

Highways and Parking

35. As no parking is proposed on site, parking for staff and restaurant users would be in town centre car parks, those in the vicinity of the development, and local streets. During the evening hours there are no parking restrictions on Down Hall Road.

36. Cycle parking spaces are also provided for both the mooring facility and the restaurant use.

37. No service lift / hoist is proposed, and it is assumed that the passenger lift to the first floor restaurant would be used for servicing. Servicing is proposed from the public highway. Subject to agreement with the Council, service vans may be able to use the emergency access gate leading to Canbury Gardens for delivery purposes. A condition would be required for servicing details to be agreed prior to the building’s first use.

Trees and Landscaping

38. There are no trees on the application site. A TPO London Plane tree lies to the north of the site. The Council’s Tree and Landscape Service objected to the scheme as originally submitted (which did not include a survey of the trees around the site), as there was concern about likely damage to the large protected Plane tree to the north of the site, and further information was considered necessary.

39. An arboriculture report has since been submitted. The building footprint in the north eastern side of the building has not been amended and is likely to present pressure for future pruning of the lower lateral limbs of this tree due to the proximity of the proposed building.

40. Conditions could require details of levels and tree protection during construction to be agreed prior to development commencing. No detailed layout of services (including above ground services) have been submitted. These would need to be designed so as to avoid conflict with trees, shrubs and hedges both to be retained and planted, and provide for their long term retention.

Environmental Impact / Sustainability

41. A screening assessment of the proposed development has been carried out, as the application falls with in Schedule 2 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations. The Council’s conclusion is that the proposed development does not require an Environmental Impact Assessment.

42. The site is adjacent to a Site of Nature Conservation Importance of Metropolitan Importance (Grade 1), being this stretch of the River Thames. - A83 - 1098Z

Community Benefit

43. The proposed development includes an offer by the applicant / landowner of security of mooring for the River Thames Boat Project. This could secured by way of S106 planning obligation.

Conclusion and Reason for Approval

44. The proposed development, with conditions, would preserve the character and appearance of the Riverside North Conservation Area, would have no significant detrimental impact on residential amenities, on the Metropolitan Open Land and Site of Nature Conservation Importance surrounding the site. The improvements to the surfacing of the site would improve the appearance of the area. The proposal therefore complies with Policies PS1, BE11, BE12, BE3, H1, KTC9, MW7, OL14, OL11, OL15, T20, T21 and T28 of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan Proposed First Alteration.

Recommendation:

1. Resolve to agree in principle subject to a legal agreement and conditions deferred until such time as a decision is made on the remainder of the Former Power Station Riverside Site, and subject to:- • a legal agreement to secure mooring rights for The River Thames Boat Project on the barge dock to be completed within 6 months, • a survey of Kingfishers to be carried out in accordance with details to be agreed by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Council’s Ecology and Environmental Officer prior to the development taking place. • and to the following CONDITIONS:

Expiry Date 1. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced within 5 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)

Materials 2. Full details of the materials, colour and texture of the external finish of the building shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development commences and the development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved finishes.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance on completion of the development in accordance with Policies BE11 (Design of New Buildings and Extensions) and STR6 (Conserving and Enhancing the

- A84 - 1098Z

Built Environment) of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan Proposed First Alteration.

Fire Escape 3. Notwithstanding the drawings hereby approved, there shall be no external fire escape. Prior to commencement of development, plans and elevations of the building hereby approved showing an internal fire escape shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, the development to be built according to these plans.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance in the interest of the visual amenities of the area and the character and appearance of the Riverside North Conservation Area in accordance with Policies BE1, BE3, and BE13 of the Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames Unitary Development Plan Proposed First Alteration.

Implementation Works 4. The site and building works required to implement the development shall only be carried out between the hours of 8.00am and 6.00pm Monday to Friday and between 8am and 1pm on Saturdays and not at all on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

Reason: In order to safeguard the amenities of the surrounding residential occupiers, in accordance with Policy H1 of the Proposed first alteration to the Adopted Unitary Development Plan 1998 (Composite Version 2002).

Working Scheme 5. 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: (a) provision for loading / unloading materials. (b) storage of plant, materials and operatives vehicles. (c) temporary site access. (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) measures for the protection of the adjacent residential terraced property from dust, noise and other nuisance arising from development works. (g) location of all ancillary site buildings. (h) means of enclosure of the site. (i) wheel washing equipment.

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 Policies H1 (Protection of Residential Amenities), STR6 (Conserving and Enhancing the Built Environment) and T1 (Transport Safety) of the Proposed first alteration to the Adopted Unitary Development Plan 1998 (Composite Version 2002). - A85 - 1098Z

Levels 6. The levels of the building, and remainder of 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. Details of both proposed and existing spot heights to be provided on plan format.

Reason: To ensure that the appearance and functioning of the development is satisfactory and to safeguard the appearance of the Riverside North Conservation Area and protected tree in accordance with Policies BE11, BE3 and BE9 of the Unitary Development Plan Proposed First Alteration.

External Plant 7. No fans, louvres, ducts or other external equipment shall be installed in the building without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of the residential properties and the visual amenities of the area in accordance with Policies H1 (Protection of Residential Amenities), BE11 (Design of New Buildings and Extensions) and BE3 (Development in Conservation Areas) of the Proposed first alteration to the Adopted Unitary Development Plan 1998 (Composite Version 2002).

Control of Fumes 8. Before the use hereby permitted commences, details shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority for the effective control of fumes and odours from the premises. The scheme shall be implemented before the use commences and maintained for the duration of the use.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in accordance with Policies H1 (Protection of Residential Amenities) and STR11 (Recycling) of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan Proposed First Alteration.

Opening Hours 9. The premises shall not be used for the purpose hereby permitted before 7.30am or after 11.30pm on any day.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of the residential properties in accordance with Policies BE12 (Layout and Amenity of Buildings and Extensions) and H1 (Protection of Residential Amenities) of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan Proposed First Alteration.

Plant Noise 10. The rating level of the noise emitted from plant located on the premises shall be at least 5dBA lower than the existing background noise level at - A86 - 1098Z

any given time of operation. The noise levels shall be determined 1m externally to any window at the nearest residential facade. The measurements and assessment shall be made according to BS4142:1997."

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties in accordance with Policies H1 (Protection of Residential Amenities), BE12 and Policy MW7 of the Proposed first alteration to the Adopted Unitary Development Plan 1998 (Composite Version 2002).

Broadcasting and Amplification 11. Any broadcasting or amplifying equipment to be installed shall at no time be audible outside the curtilage of the site.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties in accordance with Policies BE12 (Layout and Amenity of Buildings and Extensions), BE19 (Areas of Archaeological Significance), H1 (Protection of Residential Amenities) and MW7 (Noise) of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan Proposed First Alteration.

External Lighting 12. No external lighting shall be installed without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order that the lighting shall not cause nuisance to nearby occupiers or be a source of danger to road users in accordance with Policies H1 (Protection of Residential Amenities) and T1 (Transport Safety) of the Proposed first alteration to the Adopted Unitary Development Plan 1998 (Composite Version 2002)

Glazing 13. All windows in the building hereby approved shall be permanently fixed and non-opening.

Reason: In order to minimise noise disturbance to the local area in accordance with Policies MW7, H1 and BE12 of the Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames Unitary Development Plan Proposed First Alteration.

Servicing 14. Details of servicing arrangements shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the use of the building hereby approved commencing. All servicing of the premises to be carried out only in accordance with these details.

Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the free flow of traffic or conditions of general safety on adjoining highways and Canbury Gardens and that adequate servicing and manoeuvring provision is made in accordance with Policies T1, T2 and - A87 - 1098Z

T21 of Public Car Parking) of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan Proposed First Alteration.

Restriction on Servicing / Delivery Hours 15. No servicing of the building shall take place outside of the hours of 7am and 11pm on any day.

Reason: To ensure that serving of the development hereby approved does not detrimentally impact upon the free-flow of traffic and highways safety, nor upon residential amenity, in accordance with Policies T28, H1 BE12 of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan Proposed First Alteration.

Cycle Storage Provision 16. No development shall commence until full details of the secure covered cycle stores for 18 cycles for staff and customers of the River Thames Boat Project and the restaurant in the location shown on the drawing hereby approved have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. These stands shall be installed prior to first use opening of the building and shall be permanently retained thereafter.

Reason: To ensure that adequate cycle parking provision is made, in accordance with Policy T15 of the Proposed first alteration to the Adopted Unitary Development Plan 1998 (Composite Version 2002).

Refuse and Recycling Facilities 17. Refuse and Recycling Facilities shall be provided prior to the first use of the building hereby permitted in accordance with details hereby approved, 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 Policies H1 (Protection of Residential Amenities), STR6 (Conserving and Enhancing the Built Environment) and MW2 (Waste and Environment) of the Proposed first alteration to the Adopted Unitary Development Plan 1998 (Composite Version 2002).

Fencing / Protection of Retained Trees 18. No demolition, site clearance or building operations shall be commenced until fencing to the standards set out in BS5837: 1991 "Protection of Trees on Construction Sites" (figures 4 and 5) of a height not less than 1.5 metres has been erected around the trees shown on the approved drawings as being retained on the site. The fencing shall enclose:- • such an area to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Council’s Arboriculture Manager Such fencing shall be maintained during the course of development, and no storage, site structures, parking or any other operation shall be permitted within the area thereby enclosed.

- A88 - 1098Z

Within the fencing: (a) levels shall not be raised or lowered in relation to the existing ground level, (b) no roots shall be cut, trenches dug, or soil removed or drains and services laid, (c) no buildings, site huts, roads or other engineering operations shall be constructed or carried out, (d) no vehicles shall be driven over the area, (e) no materials or equipment shall be stored. and the destruction by burning of any materials shall not take place on the site or adjoining land unless the fires are at a minimum distance from the fenced area of 6.00 metres.

Reason: To prevent unnecessary damage occurring to the trees during building operations, thereby safeguarding the visual amenities of the site in accordance with Policy BE9 (Trees and Soft Landscaping) of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Proposed first alteration to the Adopted Unitary Development Plan 1998 (Composite Version 2002).

Landscaping – hard and soft 19. No development shall commence until a landscaping scheme including hard landscaping of the site shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented within the first planting season following completion of the development and the landscaping shall thereafter be maintained for five years to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any plants which die during this period shall be replaced in the first available planting season.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity of the locality, Canbury Gardens, the Riverside North Conservation Area in accordance with Policy BE9 (Trees and Soft Landscaping) of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan Proposed First Alteration

Informatives

1. The applicants attention is drawn to Conditions 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 14, 16, 18 and 19 of this permission which refer to matters which must be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before any works on site commence. The applicant is advised to contact the Planning Officer at an early date to ensure no undue delay occurs in the development of this site.

2. This application concerns premises to be used for the provision of goods, facilities or services to the public, within the meaning of Part 3 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The applicant should therefore bear in mind that from October 2004 disabled people could take legal action against the applicant or any subsequent occupier of the premises if reasonable adjustments to the premises have not been - A89 - 1098Z

made to facilitate access for disabled people. Provided the works are carried out in such a way that they meet the recommended standards referred to in the access statement.

3. The applicant should consult with the Borough Environmental Health Officer to ensure that the layout of any food premises complies with statutory requirements and the Council's standards.

4. The detailed layout of services (including above ground services) must be designed so as to avoid conflict with trees, shrubs and hedges both to be retained and planted, and provide for their long term retention.

- A90 - 1098Z

Development Control Committee

Date of Meeting:23/06/2005

______

A7 Register No: 05/12242/LEG

Address: KINGSTON POWER STATION, SKERNE ROAD, KINGSTON UPON THAMES Ward: Canbury Description of Proposal: Variation of Clause 4, Schedule 2 of S106 legal agreement (ref 95/3394) for the development of the power station site for residential and a hotel, to remove the restriction reserving the southern part of the power station site for a hotel for a period of 10 years to 13th September 2006.

RECOMMENDATION See end of Report for Recommendation

Plan Type: Legal Agreement Expiry Date: 25/05/05

Basic Information:

Development Plan: Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan Proposed First Alteration UDP Policies KTC12 Provision of Hotel and other Visitor Facilities PS1 Former Power Station, Skerne Road/Canbury Gardens RL8 New Hotel Accommodation STR1 Housing Supply

Total Site Area 8084sq m Total Floor Area 0sq m

Consultations

Over 1000 local addresses were consulted in the vicinity of the development, including addresses on the opposite side of the river, facing the site. A consultation letter was sent to local addresses advising of three related applications made by the same applicant for Proposal Site 1, this application to vary an existing legal agreement being one of these.

Nineteen of the response letters received commented on this application to vary the legal existing legal agreement, all raising issues of concern / objecting. The following is a summary of the issues raised: • Site should remain a hotel site

- A91 - 1098Z

• Site was selected as suitable for a much needed, prestigious, hotel and conference centre. Need for a good, well positioned hotel is still there. The original decision was apparently carefully thought through; how has the position changed? • Increased pressure on transport services (particularly SWT) which already hardly copes • 65% of the content / comment of the Savills report was as applicable in the mid-90s as the mid-2000’s. • The market has shifted and residential is now where the money is, particularly by the water • Converting from hotel to a housing leasehold site, combined with rise in land values in the Borough over last 10 years has created a bonanza for the landowner, providing ample funding to maximise community benefit • Argument that the river location is superceded by a town centre one is not accepted, but consider that there is a market for to right leisure group with the right mix of retail / restaurant. • Do not accept thinly disguised arguments. Pick up Savills assertion that the site which was allocated for student accommodation would be better for the hotel. If it is, then tie the two plots together and we will have the hotel first, not last or never • This is the last major “river side” sites in Kingston and a beautiful quiet location • Building a hotel will provide greater benefit to existing residents of Kingston than more flats. Relatively little hotel accommodation in North Kingston but there has been a spate of building flats • Not acceptable to put hundreds more flats (high density) onto a hotel site in an area that already has so many new dwellings • More flats and a restaurant would put further strain on Kingston’s schools and health services. • Site should be “ring fenced” to prevent the entire area becoming one huge homogenous block of high density housing • Site is compromised by neighbouring utility use. A more imaginative solution for the area should be sought. We consider it unsuitable for either a high rise hotel or apartment block • If site is not used for a hotel it would be better used for some community use, providing services for the wider community • If Council’s opinion is that residential is the best use for the site, family houses or larger flats should be developed • If the site is not to be used for a hotel the council should consult with residents over what might be a suitable development (public consultation) prior to lifting the legal restriction • Better to wait and see the result of other planning application on the Power Station

Canbury and Riverside Association (CARA) – • Market analysis submitted with the applications notwithstanding, we believe that to lift the legal restriction now would expose the town to the risk of losing the opportunity for such a hotel. It would be better to wait and see the result of the other planning application

- A92 - 1098Z

The application was referred to the Kingston Town Planning Sub-Committee on 8 June for views. The following issues were raised:-

• That the Development Control Committee be advised that as this Committee does not support the current proposal for development on this site it would not wish the requested variation to the S106 agreement to be approved.

Site And Surroundings

1. The application site (of approx. 8,084m²) is on the south west side of the Former Kingston Power Station site, in the northern part of the Kingston Town Centre. The site was cleared of all former Power Station buildings in the mid-1980s. With the exception of the barge dock (which is used for mooring of a vessel) the site has now been vacant for some 20 years.

2. The site (excluding the barge dock) was previously used as a coal store for the Power Station, with most of the site being excavated to a depth of approx. 3m, with concrete retaining walls on the east and west side and on the former service road.

3. This land, together with the part-operational Thames Water pumping station is the only remaining land within Proposal Site 1 yet to be redeveloped. There is an Adopted Planning Brief for the site (1995).

4. The former coal store site is bounded to the north by Canbury Place (a late 1990s housing development of 4 and 6 storey houses and flats which was also part of Proposal Site 1), with a path directly to the north of the application site. It is bounded to the east by the operational EDF Kingston Electricity Grid Station (recently granted planning permission for residential development around it). To the south of the coal store is the part-operational Thames Water pumping station, consisting of two 2-storey brick buildings fronting Down Hall Road. Canbury Gardens lies to the west of the site.

5. Thames Side car park is directly to the south of the barge dock, with Canbury Gardens to the north east and the River Thames to the west. To the east is the Power Station’s old service road.

6. The site has many UDP designations, including Proposal Site 1, Strategic Area of Special Character (Key Views), Thameside Area of Special Character, Thames Policy Area, Area of Archaeological Significance, Riverside North Conservation Area (Barge Dock), and Metropolitan Open Space (Barge Dock).

- A93 - 1098Z

7. History

95/3394 “Erection of 8 x 4-bed houses, 44 x 3-storey Permit houses, 6 x 3-bed flats, 101 x 2-bed flats & 18 Subject to Legal x 1-bed flats (FULL), 150 bed hotel Agreement13/9/96 (OUTLINE), basement parking. Alterations to Skerne Rd – new access & assoc roads & car parking.” Hybrid Planning Application (Full for Housing proposal / Outline for Hotel proposal)

8. Background Section 106A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) provides that a planning obligation may be modified at any time by agreement between the relevant parties. Alternatively, at any time after the expiry of 5 years from entering into a planning obligation, any relevant parties may apply to the Local Planning Authority (under S106A) for a modification or discharge of that planning obligation. There is a right of appeal to the Secretary of State under S106B if the application to modify the planning obligation is refused, or is not determined within 8 weeks from the date of submission.

9. The Local Planning Authority has three options in determining such an application: I. that the planning obligation shall continue to have effect without modification II. if the obligation no longer serves a useful purpose, to discharge the obligation III. if the obligation continues to serve a useful purpose, but would serve that purpose equally well if modified, then the Local Planning Authority may modify the obligation

10. There are two conditions which are relevant in determining an application to modify a planning obligation, the time threshold and a substantive test.

11. In determining an application to modify a planning obligation, in relation to the substantive test, the power of the local planning authority and, on appeal, the Secretary of State is limited to the requirement that the useful purpose served by the planning obligation could equally well be served by a modified obligation as specified in the application. If it does not, the obligation must continue to have effect without modification. The useful purpose need not be a useful planning purpose.

12. The site in question, part of the UDP Proposal Site 1 specifies appropriate uses as residential, hotel, and associated uses. It states that as it is one of the most important sites for the redevelopment of Kingston town centre during the plan period, it is vital that potential contribution to UDP and town centre strategy in land use, infrastructure and design terms is fulfilled. The Proposal Site guidelines continue “Major residential and hotel development are essential components”.

- A94 - 1098Z

13. The Planning Brief (Adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance April 1995) for Proposal Site 1 states that a hotel should be provided on the southern part of the Former Power Station Site, namely the application site.

14. The application is to modify Clause 4 of Schedule 2 of the S106 planning obligation of planning permission 95/3394 (dated 13/9/96). Application 95/3394 approved in outline (Sept 1996) a 150 bedroom hotel with a riverside restaurant with a bridge link between the two on the “Hotel land”. It also approved residential development to the north of the Hotel site for 177 dwellings.

15. Clause 4 requires the landowner not to use the “Hotel Land” (i.e. the south east part of Proposal Site 1 as shown edged blue on Plan 1 and Plan 2 attached to the planning obligation) other than for the purposes of Hotel Development for a period of 10 years (to September 2006).

16. Powergen sold the “Hotel Land” to the current applicant in 1999.

17. The landowner (NHP Group) has recently submitted planning applications to develop this “Hotel Land” for residential use on the main site (ref. 05/12218) and for a restaurant (ref.05/12214) over the barge dock. Application 05/12218 has now been withdrawn pending further negotiations and a further application is anticipated.

18. The applicant has also submitted a planning application for a 150 bedroom “4-star” hotel with restaurants / bars, health and fitness suite, business centre, and conferencing / banqueting facilities (as well as an outline application for a hotel with retail) on the Vicarage Road site (Proposal Site 2), another town centre site, but south of the railway bridge, which is also on this committee agenda.

19. UDP Policy KTC12 refers to the need for high quality hotel accommodation in the town centre.

20. Policy RL8 requires that “Proposals for new or additional hotel accommodation will be encouraged on suitable sites identified in the plan. Elsewhere proposals for large scale hotel development will only be granted planning permission at major focal points where infrastructure and other facilities area available, and provided that the proposal does not conflict with any other policy of the plan.”

The Proposal

21. Variation of Clause 4, Schedule 2 of S106 legal agreement (ref 95/3394) for the development of the power station site for residential and a hotel, to remove the restriction reserving the southern part of the power station site for a hotel for a period of 10 years to 13th September 2006.

- A95 - 1098Z

Considerations

22. Does Clause 4 Schedule 2 of legal agreement associated with permission 95/3394 continue to serve a useful purpose?

23. The objective of the clause is to ensure that a “quality” hotel is built in the town centre, on this riverside site, as required by Proposal Site 1 of the UDP and as supplemented by the adopted 1995 Planning Brief (which is supplementary planning guidance).

24. The site owner is now proposing to develop an alternative town centre site at Wood St / Vicarage Rd / Water Lane, also in its ownership, for a 150 bedroom hotel, and proposes funding this in part by developing the approved hotel site (PS1) for residential use.

25. At the time of the 2001 reserved matters application (which also amended the approved outline permission for a “quality” hotel, increasing the number of bedrooms to 225), an agreement had been reached with a 4-star hotel operator, and the scheme was amended to meet its requirements. However, the operator did not conclude the agreement.

26. The consultants Savills have prepared a report in respect of hotel development in Kingston Town Centre, submitted for the current application for a 180 bedroom 4-star hotel at Vicarage Rd/ Wood St/ Water Lane site. This report concludes that a number of factors contributed to the marketing of the former power station site for a quality hotel being fruitless, including: • implications for the hotel sector of September 11th 2001 • the decline in demand for quality hotels and related increase in demand for budget hotels • the level of investment required • lack of visibility of the site, and its remoteness from the town centre.

27. The Savills report considers that the determining factor for successive hotel companies electing not to proceed with an acquisition is that Kingston is not a recognised hotel location, and that a new hotel in the town should be located on a busy main thoroughfare to establish its profile and to ensure its ongoing commercial viability.

28. Savills conclude that riverside views would actually contribute very little to the economic success of an hotel, or more importantly, its income- generating facilities. It suggests that the site bounded by Vicarage Road, Wood Street and Water Lane is one of the most prominent and highly visible locations in the town.

29. The planning application for a hotel on the Vicarage Road site was deferred by the Development Control Committee on 20th April 2005 for further negotiation on contract parking. It is linked to this application in that they have the same applicant, and the justification for modifying the legal agreement so that the “hotel land” on the former power - A96 - 1098Z

station site is no longer reserved for hotel development is that an hotel could be provided elsewhere in the town centre, on a more suitable site (Vicarage Road).

Conclusion

30 Any approval to vary the legal agreement to delete Clause 4 of Schedule 2 would need to be subject to the implementation of any planning permission for an hotel granted on the Vicarage Road site, and the linking such a permission with any permission granted for a non-hotel use on the “hotel site” by way of a legal agreement. Both sites are currently owned by the same applicant.

31. This could take the form of a restriction on the occupation of the dwellings on the “hotel land” until an hotel has been substantially completed on the Vicarage Road site.

Recommendation: Resolve to grant variation in principle and deferring until such time as a decision is made on the ‘Hotel Land’ and site at Vicarage Road/Water Lane.

- A97 - 1098Z

APPENDIX B

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

23 June 2005

CONTROL OF HIGH HEDGES

Report by the Director of Environmental Services

SUMMARY The control of High Hedges is included within the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 (part 8). It will be a statutory obligation for Local Authorities to administer the legislation. Central Government has advised Local Authorities to set their own application fees in order to cover the cost of administration. Under the Local Government (Functions and Responsibilities) (England) Regulations 2000 as amended, responsibility for all functions relating to high hedges rests with the full Council and not with the Executive. A fee of £400 is proposed for dealing with high hedges complaints. This is a ‘cost neutral’ figure. Additional delegation is also needed to streamline the process, This Committee is asked to consider the fee proposals and scheme of delegation for recommendation to Council. The responsibility for the control of high hedges is not an Executive responsibility and needs to be included in this Committee’s Terms of Reference.

RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Council be RECOMMENDED to

1. agree the application fee at £400.

2. agree the following delegation to the Director of Environmental Services, in conjunction with the Head of Legal Services where necessary, under Part 8 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 [High hedges legislation]

Power to determine complaints Power to make relax or withdraw a remedial notice Power to enter land and undertake remedial works Power to waive the application fee (in whole or in part) in exceptional circumstances

3. include responsibility for this function within the Terms of Reference of the Development Control Committee;

4. authorise the appropriate amendments to the Constitution.

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION To establish a scheme of delegation for dealing with the process of complaints about high hedges and ensure that the costs incurred by the Council in dealing with the legislation are met.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\3\4\0\AI00003043\BHighHedges0.doc

BACKGROUND 1. Part 8 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, which gives authorities powers to deal with complaints about high hedges, came into operation in England on 1 June 2005. 2. From this date, provided they have tried and exhausted all other avenues for resolving their hedge dispute, people can take their complaint to their local Council. The role of the Council is not to mediate or negotiate between the complainant and the hedge owner but to adjudicate on whether - in the words of the Act – “the hedge is adversely affecting the complainant's reasonable enjoyment of their property”. In doing so, the Council must take account of all relevant factors and must strike a balance between the competing interests of the complainant and hedge owner, as well as the interests of the wider community. 3. If it considers the circumstances justify it, the Council would issue a formal notice to the hedge owner which would set out what they must do to the hedge to remedy the problem, and when by. Failure to carry out the works required by the Council is an offence which, on prosecution, could lead to a fine of up to £1,000. The Council also has the power to carry out the required works in default of the hedge owner and recover its costs. 4. Central Government has not exercised its powers under section 68 of the Anti- social Behaviour Act 2003 to prescribe in regulations the maximum fee that local authorities can charge for dealing with high hedges complaints. Under the Act, the complainant must pay any such fee. As a result of this decision, local authorities in England are free to decide whether, and at what level, it is appropriate to charge for this service, taking account of local circumstances and local taxpayers' wishes. Should they so wish, authorities may provide this service free, or charge different amounts to different groups of people. This is in line with the Government's general policy of allowing such decisions to be made at the local level.

SCHEME OF DELEGATION 5. Most complaints are likely to deal with private matters that are of concern only to the people involved and so Councils can delegate the decision to officers. A committee or subcommittee of the Council might wish to decide those cases that raise wider Neighbourhood issues and are locally sensitive. 6. In order to streamline the process it is proposed that the following aspects of the legislation be delegated to the Director Of Environmental Services and on a day to day basis these would be operated by the Landscape and Arboricultural Manager;

• Under Part 8 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 [High hedges legislation] Power to determine complaints made under Part 8 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 • Power to make, relax or withdraw a remedial notice under Part 8 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 • Power to enter land and undertake remedial works under Part 8 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\3\4\0\AI00003043\BHighHedges0.doc

FEES 7. Results from the consultation on the legislation undertaken by the ODPM last year revealed the following; “76% of local authority respondents favours a maximum fee based on full cost recovery. While 38% of authorities agreed that the proposed fee of £280 to £320 would cover their costs, more (47%) thought this was an underestimate. A fee in the range of £400 to £600 had most support. Under the terms of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, authorities may set different rates for different groups – for example, for those on low incomes or benefits. They may also decide whether, and in what circumstances, to allow any refund. But there is no obligation on them to do so” 8. The Act allows Councils to charge a fee for determining a complaint about a high hedge based on the cost of providing the service. The Secretary of State has not, at present, used his powers to prescribe, through regulations, a maximum fee. Each Council is free, therefore, to charge for this service as they see fit. 9. It is considered that the average time to deal with an application will be in the region of 2 days. This equates to processing the original application, arranging and attending site visits, writing reports and serving the appropriate notices. Based on hourly costs for relevant officers this equates to £400. 10. The fee will enable recovery of those costs incurred by the Council and also deter vexatious neighbour disputes. 11. The existing resources within the Tree and Landscape Section may not be able to cope with the level of extra work this legislation may generate and extra resources may need to be brought in as and when necessary. The review process will help to identify any shortfall in resources. In addition, appeal situations will require input from both Legal Services and Environmental Services. 12. If the Council were to employ a consultant to deal with the complaints (based on the current lowest recommended hourly rate) this would be in the region of £400- 450/case. 13. Consideration could be given to a reduced rate for pensioners, those on low income or the unemployed. However it must be borne in mind that Planning application fees do not offer a reduced rate for applications. It is considered that a flat fee is the most appropriate in this case. However it is recommended that, in exceptional circumstances, the Director of Environmental Services be able to waive the application fee in whole or in part.

PUBLIC INFORMATION 14. The Council will prepare appropriate material for both the website and in leaflet form to advise residents of the nature of the legislation in respect of High Hedges, its scope and the fees involved. The Council will also provide a telephone helpline to deal with enquiries.

PROPOSAL 15. To set the application fee at £400 in the first instance.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\3\4\0\AI00003043\BHighHedges0.doc

16. Delegate certain powers under the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 to the Director of Environmental Services 17. Review the process and (in turn the level of application fee) at the time when all fees are reviewed.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS

18. The aim of the proposals is to lead to better process and understanding of the legislation. It will prevent the unnecessary removal of hedges where it has been demonstrated that no problem is actually occurring.

Background papers : held by Dominic Blake (author of report); telephone: 020 8547 5505; e-mail: [email protected],gov.uk

1. Fee scales in other authorities

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\3\4\0\AI00003043\BHighHedges0.doc

APPENDIX C DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

23 JUNE 2005

KINGSTON HOSPITAL TRUST: HEALTHY TRANSPORT STRATEGY –PROGRESS AND MONITORING UPDATE

REPORT BY THE INTERIM DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

SUMMARY

This report sets out the findings of the second full monitoring report on the approved 1999 / 2000 Healthy Transport Strategy for Kingston Hospital.

RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that:-

1. the Monitoring Report presented by the Hospital’s Traffic Consultants be noted; 2. the conclusions drawn by officers at paragraph 21 be noted;

3. the recommended actions at paragraph 29 be agreed and officers

authorised to pursue these with the Hospital’s Traffic Consultants.

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION

To appraise the Committee of progress by the Hospital Trust in implementing its Strategy to reduce car travel to the Hospital and encourage alternative modes of travel and review ways of making it more

Background

Need for a Travel Plan

1. The preparation of a Travel Plan by Kingston Hospital NHS Trust was a condition of the s106 Legal Agreement attached to the temporary planning permission granted to Roehampton Wing on 29.09.98 (ref. 98/6100) for a period of 5 years. [This Committee resolved to renew that permission (ref. 03/14760) for a further 5 years on 23 October 2003].

2. The Travel Plan was named the “Healthy Transport Strategy” (referred to as HTS from here on), was completed by the Hospital’s Transport Consultant’s by October 1999 and approved by the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames’ (RBK from here on) Development Control Committee on 14 December 1999. The plan highlights opportunities for achieving a modal shift from the use of the car and the potential for meeting the RBK target of reducing daytime staff car use by 33% during the period up to 2005.

3. The HTS is recognised as a relevant consideration in dealing with any significant future development proposals at the Hospital. The Hospital has previously indicated

that it is prepared to link key stages in the implementation of the Plan to future development proposals. For example, it offered a financial contribution as part of the S106 legal agreement for the A & E Unit to help deal with the impact of parking in nearby residential streets

Staff Travel Surveys and Monitoring

4. A Staff Travel Survey was held in 1999 that recorded employee travel behaviour before the HTS and associated schemes was introduced. It provides the baseline for measuring future surveys against and success of the HTS against.

5. The second Staff Travel Survey was implemented in February 2002 as part of the first monitoring and review of the HTS since its implementation in late 1999. This survey was delayed to allow the impact of the new A & E Unit (and the associated reduction in staff car parks) to be included. Results were provided to this Committee on 4 December 2002 and it was noted that encouraging progress had been made in the two years since the HTS had been introduced, but resolved that a number of issues should be discussed further with the Hospital, including the appointment of a Travel Plan Co-ordinator.

6. RBK agreed the next survey and review should be deferred to include the effects of the implementation of the Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) and Home Zone in the area in Autumn 2003. Hence, interim results were reported to this Committee on 23 October 2003, showing the following progress:-

a) advertisement of the Travel Plan Co-ordinator’s post; b) distribution of patient information booklets with appointment letters to highlight parking difficulties and recommended use of public transport; c) providing additional showers/changing facilities; d) providing 4 additional disabled parking bays outside A & E; and, e) introducing visitor parking fines.

The interim results also showed that little or no progress had been made with regards to the following:-

a) encouraging hospital staff to use the Chessington Christmas Park and Ride scheme or sharing the Kingston University bus service; b) buying back staff parking permits; c) increasing the take up of interest free loans to buy public transport season tickets and bicycles; and, d) introducing more / extended bus routes.

7. A Staff Travel Survey was then carried out in February 2004 after the introduction of the nearby CPZ and Home Zone. The report was not submitted to RBK until December 2004 – almost one year late. The results detailed in the report – and a comparison to the results of the 1999 and 2002 surveys – are shown in the tables on the following pages.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\6\4\0\AI00003046\CKHospHealthyTransportStrategy0.doc C3

TABLE 1 – Survey results (1999 to 2004) vs target

Mode of 1999 2002 2004 2004 Targets to Comments transport Survey Survey Survey Survey achieve by (winter) (summer) 2005 Bus 11% 17% 13% 13% 18% No comment Bicycle 7% 5% 5% 11% N/a No target set − For staff within 1 mile who drive: from 20% to 5% Car driver, on N/a − For staff within 1 – 2 miles who drive: 62% 50% 54% 45% own from 63% to 28% − For staff from 2 – 4 miles who drive: from 65% to 36% Car driver, with 6% 8% 4% 4% 10% Listed in HTS as Informal Car Shares

passenger(s) Car 0% 2% 2% 2% 10% Listed in HTS as informal Car Shares passenger Hospital transport 1% 1% 1% 1% N/a No target set (minibus) Motorbike 1% 1% 2% 2% N/a No target set Train 5% 6% 10% 9% 8% No comment Walking 7% 10% 9% 13% N/a No target set TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100%

Each column shows the percentage of staff responding to the survey who travelled by that mode of transport. The results combine “Day staff” and “Other staff”, to provide an average across all hospital staff.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\6\4\0\AI00003046\CKHospHealthyTransportStrategy0.doc C4

TABLE 2 - Percentage changes of modal shift from year to year

%age Total% %age %age Total% change change change change change from from Mode of transport from from 2002 from 1999 2002 to 1999 to 1999 to to 2004 to 2004 2004 2004 2002 (summer) (summer) (winter) (winter) Bus +54% -24% -24% +18% +18% Bicycle -29% 0% +120% -29% +57% Car driver, on own -19% +8% -10% -13% -27% Car driver, with +33% -50% -50% -33% -33% passenger(s) From Car From 0% From 0% to 0% to 0% 0%

passenger to 2% 10% 2% Hospital transport 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% (minibus) Motorbike 0% +100% +100% +100% +100% Train +20% +67% +50% +100% +80% Walking +43% -10% +30% +29% +86%

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\6\4\0\AI00003046\CKHospHealthyTransportStrategy0.doc C5

Table 3 – Distances travelled by staff to get to work

Distance 2002 2004 Up to 1 mile 9% 8% 1 – 2 miles 10% 7% 2 – 4 miles 24% 25% 5 – 10 miles 37% 43% 11 – 20 miles 12% 11% > 20 miles 8% 6%

Overall, 83% of staff live within 10 miles of the hospital, compared to 80% in the 2002 survey. The majority (43%) live within 5-

10 miles (up from 37% in 2002 survey). The Hospital’s traffic consultants caution against reading too much into this as the staff survey sample for each distance band is too small for the differences in car driving noted in the surveys between 2002 and 2004 to be statistically significant. On average, almost two-thirds of staff say their journey time takes less than 30 minutes, the most common journey time being 16-30minutes, which has not really changed since the 2002 survey.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\6\4\0\AI00003046\CKHospHealthyTransportStrategy0.doc C6

Table 4 – Mode of transport vs distance travelled to get to work

Modal split 1999 2002 2004 Targets (by 2005) Staff living within 1 mile who 20% 15% 17% 5% currently drive Staff living within 1 – 2 miles 63% 42% 44% 28% who currently drive Staff living within 2 – 4 miles 65% 41% 47% 36% who currently drive Change staff use of buses 13% 18% 12% 18% Change staff use of trains 5% 7% 12% 8% Change car shares 7% 10% 6% 10%

A high number of staff (80% or more) living within 1 mile of the Hospital do not drive to work. Beyond 1 mile, the modal split is dominated by cars but it can be seen that there has been some positive progress in changing from car to other modes (notably train) up to 5 miles away from the Hospital since the HTP was introduced.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\6\4\0\AI00003046\CKHospHealthyTransportStrategy0.doc

Comparison of Surveys

8. Similar questions were asked in all three surveys to allow for direct comparison of results and the questionnaires were distributed with salary slips as previously. The 2004 report differed in that it explores and notes seasonal variations with higher use of non-car modes, particularly walking and cycling, in the summer (as one would expect).

9. Response rates for all three surveys were low.

a) 1999: 17% (433 of 2600 staff) b) 2002: 22% (611 of 2760 staff) c) 2004: 11% (343 of 2989 staff)

10. Generally, staff worked similar hours and patterns in 1999 and 2002, but there was a slight rise in the perceived distances and times it took staff to travel to work in 2004. A 12-hour shift system was introduced for some staff in 2004.

11. The February 2002 Survey incorporates the impact of the new A & E Unit and the associated reduction in staff car parks.

12. The February 2004 Survey incorporates the impact of the nearby CPZ and Home Zone introduced in Autumn 2003.

Current position

13. The results, even by the report author’s admission, have to be treated with caution because of the low response rate. (The Hospital has advised that, with hindsight, the questionnaire was sent out at a bad time when other ‘end of financial year’ information e.g. P60s, were being sent out with salary slips).

14. While the hospital appears to be making some effort to achieve the targets set out in the HTS in 1999, it is results that are important. The HTS has had a positive impact since the start of 2000 when elements of the Strategy started to be implemented by the Hospital Trust. Overall, lone car drivers have reduced overall from 62% in 2000 to 54% in 2004. However, after an encouraging start, the momentum has slowed markedly since 2002 with no overall percentage reduction in car travel compared to more sustainable modes. In fact, notwithstanding the overall 15% reduction in car travel by day staff, there has been an overall increase in lone drivers and a decrease in car sharing. Only the use of the train shows any sustained growth. This is contrary to the adopted planning brief for the site that sets out the objective of securing a 33% reduction in daytime car use by staff by 2005.

15. In the 1999 Monitoring Report, the Hospital’s traffic consultants considered that it should be possible to reduce by half the daytime percentage of lone car drivers in the medium term i.e. 5 years. But that the 33% target was only likely to be achieved by daytime staff in the long term. They now state that the lower than desired reduction probably reflects the fact that it is becoming increasingly difficult to achieve further reductions like those achieved in the first two years of the HTS when the initiatives had greatest impact. This avoids the fact that the plan should review and implement alternative initiatives to deliver the targets.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\6\4\0\AI00003046\CKHospHealthyTransportStrategy0.doc

16. The RBK Access Officer has expressed concern to the Trust about the identification and management of disabled parking bays. This is being discussed separately through the discharge of planning conditions attached to the Phase V planning permission.

17. The results suggest that introducing car parking permits in 2001 and reducing on- site parking provision had a more significant impact on car usage than the CPZ and Home Zone in Autumn 2003

18. Instead of a reduction in on-site parking since the 2002 review resulting from the introduction of the permit system in 2001, there has been a 9% increase alone in on-site staff car parking within formal parking areas. This appears to contradict claims that car use declined between 2002 and 2004. The Hospital’s transport consultant’s response to this is that whilst there has been a significant reduction in the percentage of staff travelling to work by car, there has been an overall increase in activity and staffing at the hospital between 1999 and 2004. This accounts for the increase in parking on the site. They add that no allowance is made for staff working on early or late shifts, which have daytime parking demand and have potential personal security issues.

19. At the same time, whilst overall there has been a decrease in hospital-related on- street parking from 16% in 2002 to 13% in 2004, there is an increase in on-street car parking in streets further away from the Hospital as a result of displacement following the introduction of the CPZ and Home Zone proposals. Far from decreasing, on-street parking was almost double what it was in 1999 i.e. 13% in 2004 compared to 7% in 1999. The Hospital’s traffic consultants put this down to lack of patient and visitor parking on the hospital site.

20. There appears to be little that is new in terms of achievements from the 2002 Report. It is too early to know what impact, if any, the appointment the Travel Plan Officer is having as she had only been in post one month at the time the survey was undertaken. However, there has to be concern about how effective she can be given that the post appears to be included as part of other responsibilities – para. 7.2.1 of the report states that the role of Travel Plan Officer is included in the position of Telecommunications & Transport Manager. The S106 legal agreement attached to the Phase V planning permission dated 5 April 2004 requires that prior to the implementation of the planning permission a Travel Plan Co-ordinator is appointed and the Council is notified of the appointment (with details) and of any changes (from time to time). The S106 further sets out the role of the Travel Plan Co-ordinator to co-operate with the Council to monitor and assess and review measures to improve the performance of the Travel Plan. The Trust has noted this concern and has advised that the post will be ‘re-focussed'.

Conclusion

21. It should be concluded from the results in the 2004 Monitoring Report that efforts to date have not been successful in achieving a significant modal shift within the hospital. Approximately half the Hospital’s workforce of approximately 3,000 staff still travel to the site by private vehicle. It is difficult to conclude how successful modal shift to train and bus have been because the sample size is too small to draw any definite conclusions.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\6\4\0\AI00003046\CKHospHealthyTransportStrategy0.doc

22. The HTS is in need of review with ‘realistic’ new modal split targets required, along with an updated strategy to assist in achieving the goals. In particular, it notes that whilst modal split change has been positive with the overall target on course, car modal shift has slowed, with staff on average living further away and many car drivers also stating they had no alternative means of travel to work.

23. Traffic congestion always comes high on the list of things that residents think most need improving. Journeys to work account for a large proportion of car and van use in peak periods, particularly in outer and inner London. Preparing a Travel Plan is a key way for companies to reduce staff travel to / from and for work, or encourage more sustainable modes of travel, thereby helping to improve London's air quality as well as providing other business benefits.

24. The Council agrees with the Mayor of London's Transport Strategy that recognises that congestion is best tackled through land use policies and demand restraint measures such as Travel Plans. Hence, section 9 of the Council’s Policy Programme states that “We will promote a sustainable transport system that ensures good accessibility and effective protection of the environment. Our Local Implementation Plan will promote alternatives to the car, including walking and cycling initiatives and campaigning for better public transport”.

25. The Council’s policies for the promotion of walking, cycling and improvements to public transport provision align closely with the Mayor of London’s Transport Strategy.

26. The Council works closely with TfL and Surrey County Council to secure significant improvements to bus services.

27. A major way the Council aims to tackle traffic congestion in the borough, and the resulting negative impact this has on our environment is through controlling developments to minimise their impact and make the submission and consequent implementation and monitoring of a Travel Plan a key activity.

28. The Hospital must begin to realise that the successful implementation of their HTS is vital for future planning permission approval and further development at the site as the effectiveness of the HTS continues to be a material consideration in the assessment of planning applications on the Hospital site. Until the current severe parking and traffic management problems that exist on site are addressed, the likelihood of receiving planning permission for future developments may be impacted.

Recommendations

29. The Hospital and Council need to accept that the current HTS and resources need to be refocused. It is recommended that the Hospital address the following in an attempt to rectify the problems that currently exist and so far have not been adequately addressed since the introduction of their HTS over 5 years ago.

30. For the size of the organisation and the amount of work that needs to be done to achieve a significant modal shift away from the private car, a full time resource dedicated to the HTS to ensure schemes are to be taken forward. The investigation

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\6\4\0\AI00003046\CKHospHealthyTransportStrategy0.doc

C10

and review of the role is necessary to ensure that it complies with the requirements of the S106 legal agreement (Note: The Hospital has advised that it will be increasing the focus of the Travel Plan Co-ordinator).

31. Eligibility for yellow permits in particular and charges for parking permits should be reviewed to discourage car travel to work. Currently, no criteria exist to apply for a yellow badge. Many more permits than available on-site parking spaces are being issued and the cost of permits are also considered too low to be an effective deterrent to staff travel to work. At around £1/week, it is a much cheaper option than public transport. The HTS was written in 1999 and quotes St George’s Hospital as charging £2 / day for essential staff on-site parking (i.e. approximately £500pa compared with Kingston Hospital’s £72 charge pa).

32. Blue (priority) badges are awarded to any clinical staff who need their car at least twice during the week for work. A review should be made to determine why these appointments could not be made using a pool bike / pool car / bus or other public transport instead of the clinical staff driving their car to and from work also.

33. The Hospital needs to manage and enforce its staff parking permit system more effectively. Present lack of enforcement serves to encourage car journeys, over- parking of the site and overspill on-street parking. For example, of the drivers who responded to the 2004 Survey, approximately 10% do not have a permit, yet they continue to drive which leads to the conclusion they do not get fined for not having a permit. The 2004 report notes that Yellow Permit Holders, and even those without permits, park in Blue Permit Holder car parks and staff park in visitor / patient bays and vice versa (ref. Chapter 10 of Report). Some sort of barrier system may be required, such as the one being introduced in the Blue permit staff car park fronting Galsworthy Road.

34. There is no evidence that the 2000 initiative to restrict car park permits for those living within 1 mile or with realistic alternatives has been progressed and the buy- back scheme for voluntary surrendering of permits is not attractive enough to be working. (The hospital has responded that it intends to provide information about a reduction in the number of blue permits being issued and that it intends to review permit surrender in the Review). Meanwhile visitor charges have increased to rates comparable to Kingston town centre car parks operated by RBK and penalties have been introduced.

35. Designated cycle parking areas appear to be underused. The increased number of cycles observed parked around the site suggesting increased cycling to hospital, is not borne out in the staff questionnaire responses. At the busiest times of the day (10.30am and 2pm), less than one-third of current provision is used.

36. Despite the Trust’s efforts to implement the HTP there is clearly still scope for the Hospital to do more to achieve the Travel Plan targets. However, at the same time it has to be acknowledged that staff and visitor numbers are increasing and the recent decisions to downgrade the status of Epsom Hospital and replace it with a new hospital in Sutton will have an impact on Kingston Hospital. Just as Kingston Hospital’s role increased following changes in the provision of health care and transfer of facilities from St Mary’s Hospital, Roehampton in the late 1990s, so it can be anticipated that some additional services may again be transferred, both in the short and longer term, to Kingston. This may result in a further intensification of the

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\6\4\0\AI00003046\CKHospHealthyTransportStrategy0.doc

C11

site and enlargement of its staff / patient catchment area with the propensity for increased car travel, although some of this may be offset by a greater de- centralisation of non-acute services to Primary Care medical centres.

37. ‘Between Hospitals’ transportation also needs to be discussed between the hospitals. The Trust advises that whole operating teams of doctors and nurses decamp from Kingston Hospital to other hospitals. Strategies need to be developed that address how this can be achieved in the most travel efficient way. The Kingston Hospital Trust advises that the Queen Mary’s shuttle bus service it currently operates is very expensive to run and not well used and future funding is therefore likely to be an issue.

38. An analysis of the reasons given by staff for using their cars to travel to and from work (more in point 48) highlights a number of key deterrences (real or imagined) which should be investigated and addressed. For example, approximately 30% of drivers who responded to the 2004 survey stated the reason they use a private car for their journey to work is because there is no direct public transport link from their home.

39. Environmental Implications

These are covered in the report.

Background papers, The Kingston Hospital NHS Trust ‘Healthy Transport Strategy 1999/2000’ Committee reports of 14 December 1999; 4 December 2002; 23 October 2003 MVA traffic consultants reports of 1999, 2002 and 2004 are held by the authors of the report Karen Perry 020 8547 5418 email [email protected] Anne Sharman 020 8547 5876 or email [email protected]

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\6\4\0\AI00003046\CKHospHealthyTransportStrategy0.doc

C12

APPENDIX 1 - Overall comments regarding 2004 Survey results

40. Due to the very small sample sizes (shown in point 9), the results – particularly for 2004 – should be treated with caution. The sample size could be considered too small to be representative and could be skewed. For example, only 20 or so respondents were “Out of Hours / Variable” shift workers and almost 80% of respondents were female. The authors of the report also suggest the results should be treated.

Car usage and car parking

41. A parking permit system was introduced in 2001 when the A & E was built and the number of on-site staff parking spaces reduced from 692 to 600. It was hoped this system would deter drivers and minimise parking problems on-site. Although there has been some success in reducing travel by car, it has not been enough to resolve the car parking problems.

42. The maximum occupancy of the 11 staff car parks was observed as being 2pm (shift changeover). A number of the car parks approached capacity by 7am (as a result of day staff reoccupying night staff spaces). All the car parks were fully occupied or over capacity by 10.30am, with declining usage after 4pm. The visitor / patient car parks (two on Galsworthy Road and one outside the Physiotherapy department) were noted as very busy (reaching capacity by 10.30am), especially in the afternoon when queuing for spaces is typical.

43. Staff parking on site has now increased to an average maximum of 745 staff. The 2004 report notes a 9% increase (from 599 to 658 vehicles) between 2002 and 2004 in staff parking in formal parking areas on site. The remaining 87 or so vehicles parking on site must therefore be parking outside formal parking areas.

44. Staff were observed parking in some of visitor spaces and for longer than allowed as well as outside bays, in the road and surrounding pavements. Yellow Permit holders and cars without permits were observed parking in Blue (“Priority”) Permit holder car parks

45. 86% of respondents to the 2004 survey who drive said they parked on site. 9% of day staff and 13% of other staff using the hospital car parks had no permit.

46. On street car parking in the agreed survey area around the Hospital increased from 7% in 1999 to 16% in 2002 (most likely due to the reduction in parking mentioned in point 14). It then decreased to 13% in 2004 following the introduction of the CPZ and Home Zone (which were excluded from the survey area). The consequence of this was a further increase of hospital-related parking on street, but further away from the hospital (notably Dickerage Road - 21%).

47. Peak demand in 2004 was estimated as being 148 staff vehicles parked on street in the survey area at shift changeover at 2pm, together with a maximum of 74 visitors / patient vehicles. That is, a total of approximately 222 cars. The designated short- stay spaces in the CPZ may have made it easier for visitors / patients to park on the street.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\6\4\0\AI00003046\CKHospHealthyTransportStrategy0.doc

C13

48. The main reasons given in 2004 for why staff use their car to get to work were:-

a) personal convenience (25%) b) no direct public transport link (21%). c) car was essential to perform their job (13%) d) personal security reasons (14%) e) other reasons (27%) f) no alternative (6%)

The Hospital’s traffic consultants have advised that it would be misleading to conclude that only 6% have “no alternative” to using a car to get to work if you take account of the fact that 13% of staff who are car users also ticked the boxes in the questionnaire: “car essential to perform job”, and 21% “No direct transport link”.

This leads to the conclusion that 94% have an alternative(s) but this / these are less attractive than driving.

Car Sharing

49. Despite the launch of a car share database in 2004, the survey results show a decrease in car sharing. The Hospital has tried hard to make this initiative work but without success

Rail and bus usage

50. Bus use, having initially increased, has now decreased. Snapshot observation surveys during several morning peaks (7am – 10am) in February 2002 and February 2004 suggested that bus usage during the morning peak has increased from an average of 120 staff in 2002 travelling to work by bus to about 217 in 2004. The most popular staff bus stops appear to be northbound on Galsworthy Road and eastbound on Coombe Road. Most popular staff bus routes are K2 and K3 from Surbiton and 57

51. Rail use has increased from 96 in 2002 to 105 in 2004 and now exceeds the target set in 1999. These figures represent less than 3.5% of staff. 52. The report acknowledges the results for bus and rail should be a guide only due to difficulties identifying which passengers are staff.

Walking

53. There has been an increase in the number of staff walking to the site, possibly related to improvements in infrastructure. Overall the site is well connected by pedestrian routes to its local environment with good quality footpaths and crossing facilities close to Norbiton train station and bus stops. Other improvements to walking infrastructure include:-

a) New signalised junction and additional formal hospital entrance will improve crossing facilities in Kingston Hill. (Existing pelican crossing does not fit

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\6\4\0\AI00003046\CKHospHealthyTransportStrategy0.doc

C14

desire line of people going between bus stop and hospital and people wait in middle of road for gaps in traffic).

b) Trust completed its ‘Wayfinding’ project in early 2004 with new signs located around the site - signage was considered to be generally good (except e.g. in the north of the site off Kingston Hill, which is currently under redevelopment, and off Galsworthy Road to A & E between nursing residency blocks). Lighting also generally good in public areas, less so in other areas

Cycling

54. There were 7 designated cycle parking areas in hospital grounds in 2004 providing 96 formal spaces (compared to 6 areas in 2002). In 2004 the number of bicycles observed on site at 2pm was 34 compared to 22 in 2002. These counts did not include bicycles parked out of sight (indoors etc.). It is not clear, however, how many of these were staff and how many were visitors. It is evident that cycle stands are underused – the report comments that a maximum of 40 cycles were observed on one day, which represented 42% of the designated spaces available.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\6\4\0\AI00003046\CKHospHealthyTransportStrategy0.doc

C15

APPENDIX 2 - Review of elements of the Healthy Transport Strategy

55. The following are the Healthy Transport Strategy achievements to date set, as set out in the 2004 Monitoring Report

a) Appointment of a Travel Plan Officer at the beginning of 2004 (as recommended in the 2002 Committee report). b) Healthy Transport Group has been set up by the Trust made up of a cross- section of Hospital staff. c) ‘Keyhole’, Staff News from Kingston Hospital advertises the launch of travel related incentives, achievements and changes and spells out benefits to health of walking. d) Hospital Intranet contains information on Car Parking and the Healthy Transport Plan and Circulars issued by Hospital to keep staff informed (as recommended in the 2002 Committee report). e) Information on car parking and public transport travel is posted with appointment cards to patients (as recommended in the 2002 Committee report). f) Disabled parking is available in 5 parking locations around the site and security patrols issue payment penalties for inappropriate use g) Trust continues to liase with London Buses to extend routes to suit staff hours, provide low floor accessible buses and enhance provision of bus stands and stops on site. K4 bus service has been introduced between Surbiton and Norbiton train stations. h) Improved signing of pedestrian routes. Raised crossings will be installed where possible (but no information about whether any have any been provided to date) i) Additional showers have been provided on site (84 new showers in 2002 but no information about how many, when or where in 2004). j) 8 additional cycle parking spaces have been provided on site. (88 noted in the 2002 Monitoring Report; 96 in the 2004 Report). k) A bicycle loan system is available (but no information about the level of any take up) l) Interest-free season ticket loan scheme available re. buses and trains (but no information about the level of any take up) m) Staff minibus operates between Kingston Hospital and Queen Mary’s Hospital, Roehampton – 5 times in the morning 6.45am – 9am and 4 times in the afternoon 3.20pm – 5.30pm. (The survey results indicate that around 21 staff are transferred daily in this way Mon - Fri, the most popular services being at 7.30am and 5.05pm) n) In response to the unsustainable increase in demand for blue (priority) parking permits during 2003, the number of blue parking permits has been reduced. Since January 2004, blue permits have only been issued to Clinicians working off-site more than twice/week. Administrative staff working off-site more than twice/week no longer included (No information provided about how many staff this affects) o) Trust contributed £60,000 towards introduction of CPZs and Home Zone to complement parking controls on site and encourage staff with travel alternatives to car to leave car at home p) 5 pool cars are available to staff for work purposes (the 2002 Committee report recommended the introduction of a pool car for essential users) but there is no information in the report to indicate who uses these cars, how often they are in use and whether their provision actually deters staff from driving to work

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\6\4\0\AI00003046\CKHospHealthyTransportStrategy0.doc

C16

56. Since the Monitoring Report was submitted to the Council in December 2004, the Hospital Trust has provided a list of the following additional initiatives, which it has undertaken to further demonstrate its ‘real and continuing commitment’ to achieving the aims of the HTS:-

a) The annual staff permit charge has been increased by 140% and lost permit charges have been introduced, with all parking permit income allocated to funding healthy travel initiatives, including additional cycle racks, showers and staff changing facilities, improved lighting and security. b) The number of disabled parking spaces has increased from 17 to 22. c) Colour coded parking permits indicating clinical priority have been introduced. d) Visitor parking charges have been increased to £1.80 per hour in line with RBK Kingston town centre car park charges and new Pay and Display machines have been installed. e) The Trust has joined the London Cycling Campaign. f) A “Way finding” strategy has been introduced across the site, which has attracted positive comments from patients. (This was the subject of a planning conditions attached to the A & E and Phase V planning permissions, details of which have not been submitted or approved. However, it is now understood that these details will be submitted shortly pursuant to the discharge of the A & E condition, which will allow the relevant user groups to be consulted for their views on the strategy as implemented and any shortcomings identified). g) Improved security lighting across the hospital site has been provided. h) The Trust, working in collaboration with TfL, has introduced a leaflet showing bus routes to the Hospital as well as providing travel information on patient travel appointment cards. i) It has increased the taxi contract for staff (but no information provided about trips/day). j) Increased non-emergency patient transport (the Hospital’s budget on this has increase from £410,000 to £815,000 in the past 6 years). k) Travel information on the Kingston Hospital NHS Trust web site includes map and directions by road, rail and bus and a site layout map. l) As part of its partnership approach with RBK, the Trust advertises RBK initiatives, the Christmas Park & Ride scheme from Chessington, information about road works and cyclist training. m) The Phase V development will provide improved junction, footway, bus stop and pedestrian crossing facilities at Kingston Hill/Queens Road and the Hospital has contributed land for this purpose (and, it should be noted, will be doing the same in respect of the Kingston Hill/Galsworthy Road junction). In addition it will provide improved staff and visitor pedestrian access from Kingston Hill through to Coombe Lane. It is also providing a temporary decked staff car park.

57. Included as part of its future initiatives are a) running a bike week for staff. b) promoting the ‘Halfords’ bike purchase initiative. c) introducing a bicycle ‘buddy’ scheme which pairs up less confident staff with proficient cyclists. d) undertaking a healthy transport questionnaire. e) providing an updated travel pack for new staff. f) introducing lease pool cars using LPG. g) increasing new bus routes to the Hospital, especially to the north, including a new bus stand in the Hospital.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\6\4\0\AI00003046\CKHospHealthyTransportStrategy0.doc

C17

h) promoting healthy transport initiatives on the hospital-wide patient line system (all 600 beds now have internet access with free access to the hospital channel providing patient travel information). i) providing a new staff nursery which increase capacity from 24 to 84 children. j) working with SW Trains to provide promotional information and routes for those who arrive at the Hospital by train. k) re-focusing the role of the Travel Plan Co-ordinator. l) More senior Trust board members are being invited onto the Healthy Transport Group. m) undertaking a comprehensive review of the Travel Plan in the context of the future Hospital development strategy.

58. The following are the less successful elements to date of the Healthy Transport Plan:-

a) A BUG (Bicycle User Group) has been disbanded due to lack of interest and travel target by bicycle targets are not being achieved. This was reported in 2002 and there is no information in the current report that suggests there has been any further effort to re-establish the Group or pursue other initiatives e.g. participation in RBK Cycle Friendly Employers Scheme. The Hospital’s traffic consultants have now advised that this initiative has not been written off but will be addressed again in the Travel Plan Review. b) No park and ride sites have been developed due to lack of suitable sites with enough spaces and good linking bus service. Trust seeks advice from RBK on this (same as reported in 2002. P & R sites were unsuccessfully sought by the Phase V developers. Also not clear whether P & R is a viable option long-term for a site with such a high PTAL level and such a diverse staff catchment area) c) Although a car-share database now exists (recommended action in the 2002 Committee report), this has not proved popular with staff; car share has decreased and lone car sharing has increased between 2002-2004 despite CPZ/Home Zone. The Hospital’s traffic consultants have subsequently advised that this matter will be considered in the Review. Report does not inform whether measures are in place for a free ride home for car-sharing staff who are delayed at work and miss their ride or whether plans to forge links with RBK and Kingston’s Travel Plan Support Group towards introduction of an internet based car share system + SWELTRAC Liftshare.com have progressed - these were also recommended actions in the 2002 Committee report d) No progress has been made regarding developing joint bus initiatives, notably with Kingston University. The Trust advertised the Chessington P & R scheme to staff but take up was low and, whilst some staff use the Kingston University bus service it is heavily subscribed by students and not popular with NHS staff. e) Staff parking on site has increased by 9% between 2002 and 2004 from 599 to 658 in formal parking areas, with more parked outside the formal parking areas. The Hospital’s traffic consultants advise that this is because of an overall increase in activity and staffing at the hospital over the period 1999 – 2004. Notwithstanding, this has adverse knock-on effects for pedestrian and disabled access across the site. There are no eligibility criteria for yellow (standard) parking permits and purple permits for volunteer staff are issued free of charge. Further, there is no evidence of a review of the Car Park

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\6\4\0\AI00003046\CKHospHealthyTransportStrategy0.doc

C18

Management Policy and procedures as recommended in the 2002 Committee report to promote more effective use of the parking facilities. The Hospital’s traffic consultants advise that, since commencement of Phase 5 construction, the car parks have been managed more effectively and their on going management will be considered in the Review).

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\6\4\0\AI00003046\CKHospHealthyTransportStrategy0.doc

APPENDIX D DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

23 JUNE 2005

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE MONITORING

REPORT BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to advise Members of performance on planning, building control and arboricultural matters in the borough for the most recent quarter for which data is available – January to March 2005. The report is structured around the Government’s Planning Service Best Value Performance Indicators (BVPIs).

RECOMMENDATIONS

It is RECOMMENDED that the contents of this report are noted.

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATIONS To notify the Committee of recent planning, building control and arboricultural performance, and to identify longer-term trends and benchmark against other London Authorities.

BACKGROUND 1. This report is prepared for the Development Control Committee to consider the performance of the planning, building control and arboricultural sections. The value of performance monitoring is the ability to identify strengths and weaknesses and thus allow further analysis of the reasons for changes in performance and possible anticipatory action.

2. A summary of this report is provided for the consideration of the Transport & Infrastructure Overview Panel and all four Neighbourhood Committees, with the full report available to Members via the Council website. THE DATA 3. The data is obtained from the electronic records collected by the three sections mentioned above, and provides Borough-wide analysis of service provision. It is largely based on the current set of Best Value Performance Indicators (BVPIs) used as the basis for the awarding of the annual Planning Delivery Grant. Statistics and analysis are also provided at Neighbourhood level. The data monitors performance over the most recent quarters, and also assesses longer-term trends by including data for the past three years. In addition, where available, ODPM data for London Authorities is used to benchmark performance.

4. A recent addition to the quarterly reports is the monitoring of the progress of Local Development Framework (LDF) documents as set out in the Local Development Scheme (LDS). The LDS has been agreed by the Executive and approved by the Government Office for London. Future progress on LDF documents will be monitored against the milestones set out in the LDS.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\1\4\0\AI00003041\DQPMRFull20051vF0.doc

FUTURE ADDITIONS/AMENDMENTS TO THE REPORT 5. In future quarterly reports we aim to : • explore in a little more detail emerging trends in housing permissions. • provide further analysis of appeal decisions to identify if there are trends that point to a need to strengthen or revise policy, or to advise Committees of where the risks are greatest in overturning Officer recommendations to approve. • provide analysis of the enforcement data that accords with the administrative changes introduced in recent months. • identify how many TPO application refusals, if any, are the subject of appeals.

REPORT STRUCTURE 6. This report comprises the following eight sections : 1) Local Development Framework progress – an outline of which documents will be produced, timetables and a brief outline on progress on each to date. 2) Development Control – the number of decisions, the speed of decisions (BVPI 109). 3) Housing – completions (including the proportion on previously developed land BVPI 106) and permissions including data on the “bank” of extant permissions. 4) Planning Appeals – determination of appeals (including the number of successful appeals of Council refusals (BVPI 204). 5) Planning Enforcement – cases actioned, time to first action, new cases added and cases closed. 6) Planning Department Customer Satisfaction – level of satisfaction, numbers of complaints received and issues raised. 7) Building Control – number of cases, speed of checking new cases and customer satisfaction. 8) Arboriculture – the number of new Tree Preservation Orders (TPO’s) issued and, the number and speed of TPO decisions made.

Annex 1 – Schedule of Appeals Determined in the quarter Annex 2 – The Timeline for Local Development Framework documents

KEY FINDINGS • Work proceeds on the Statement of Community Involvement, which will be presented in draft to the LDF Members’ Working group in May. It will set out how the Council intends to engage with the public on planning policy development and planning applications. The Area Action Plan for the Kingston town centre “Preferred Options” and Sustainability Appraisal have been agreed by Executive for public consultation starting in June. Access for All and Shop Front Design Supplementary Planning Documents are currently out for public consultation. • The UDP has been delayed by a Direction from the First Secretary of State to amend the affordable housing policy and employment parking standards. These modifications have been out to public consultation in April/May 2005, with adoption anticipated in the autumn.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\1\4\0\AI00003041\DQPMRFull20051vF0.doc

• The long-term trend in the number of decisions made on planning applications continues to rise. The latest quarter (that ending March 2005) saw the highest number of decisions made for any corresponding quarter for at least three years. Maldens & Coombe continues to determine the highest number of applications, and in the last quarter not just in the category that accounts for the vast majority of applications (the “Other” category), but also for “Major” and “Minor” categories. • The performance in the speed of determining “Other” applications continues to comfortably exceed government targets. The performance in the determination of “Minor” applications improved significantly in the last quarter, and the annual performance now marginally exceeds government targets. The recent improvement in the speed of determination of “Major” applications continued in the latest quarter (linked to the introduction of more structured Project Management) and performance continues to edge nearer to government targets. Measured against the performance of the other 32 London Planning Authorities, we estimate that RBK overall performance will improve from 15th overall last quarter to 9th this time. All neighbourhoods are performing well in terms of speed of determination of “Other” category applications with South of the Borough achieving the notable distinction of determining 100% this latest quarter. There continue to be differences between the neighbourhoods in terms of speed of determination of “Minor” applications with Maldens and Coombe clearing fewer within target than the other neighbourhoods. • The number of housing unit completions continues to meet the minimum new provision requirements of the London Plan, as does the proportion developed on brownfield sites, with 100% of new housing continuing to be delivered on such sites. The number of housing completions in the most recent quarter was almost double that of the yield of additional dwellings from recent planning permissions. • RBK’s overall appeal performance for the latest quarter was an improvement on the previous two quarters with almost two-thirds of appeals being dismissed. This improvement is welcomed and emphasises the need to ensure decisions made are robust, be they delegated or committee decisions. • User satisfaction with the planning service continues to be very high, although down on the unprecedented levels in the previous quarter. Response times in dealing with complaints have not matched targets recently, and need to be addressed. The lack of response/delay in responding to customer queries was also highlighted as an issue to address. • The long-term trend for building control applications continues to be upwards and the proportion generating fees continues to remain steady, although the latest quarter saw a slightly higher proportion of non-fee earning cases than the general trend. The number of cases dealt with within the prescribed time period returned to very high levels after a minor dip in the preceding quarter. The latest customer satisfaction data shows an improvement on the preceding quarter. • The number of new TPOs issued continues to decline. The number of decisions on applications for works to trees covered by TPOs returned in the latest quarter to the longer-term trend, after the unusually high number in the preceding quarter. The overwhelming majority of applications for works to trees covered by TPOs are permitted. However, only around one quarter of these are decided within the 8- week target.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\1\4\0\AI00003041\DQPMRFull20051vF0.doc D4

SECTION 1: PROGRESS OF LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK DOCUMENTS

Progress of ‘Local Development Documents’ against timetables set out in the Council’s Local Development Scheme

The Council submitted its ‘Local Development Scheme’ to the Government Office for London in March 2005 who approved it in April. It formally came into effect from 20th May 2005. The ‘Scheme’ sets out the Council’s programme for preparing ‘Local Development Documents’ under the new arrangements introduced by the Planning and Compulsory Act 2004.

The table below explains which documents are due to be produced with a start date in 2004-05, the timetables for production, and a brief progress report. Development Plan Documents carry greater weight (akin to the UDP) than Supplementary Planning Documents which provide greater detail.

The timelines for document production are given in Annex 2. In future monitoring reports this diagram will be adapted to show a second line for each document showing actual progress, to be compared with predicted progress. All reports are currently on target.

Document Purpose Commence Adoption Progress report

preparation Statement of Sets out approach to September October 2006 Initial consultation via questionnaire during Community community and stakeholder 2004 November 04 to February 05. Results received Involvement involvement both for plan- from Citizen’s Panel in April 05. making and planning Initial Draft SCI to go to LDF Member Working applications Group Late May and for consultation in September. Area Action Plan for To promote and manage the K+20 April 2007 Issues consultation during 2003/4 as part of K+20 Kingston Town Centre future development of Kingston Strategy work strategy. Now evolving into an Area Action Plan (Development Plan Town Centre began in under the new planning system. ‘Preferred Document) 2003. options’ and Sustainability Appraisal considered by Executive 17th May for public participation in June/July 2005. Core Strategy Sets the vision and strategy for March 2005 July 2008 Project planning in progress. (Development Plan meeting anticipated Evidence Base developing – open space Document) development needs for the next consultants appointed. 10-15 years

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\1\4\0\AI00003041\DQPMRFull20051vF0.doc D5

Document Purpose Commence Adoption Progress report preparation

First Development To review ‘priority’ UDP policies March 2005 July 2008 Project planning in progress. Control Policies to more fully reflect Evidence Base developing – open space (Development Plan Government guidance and the consultants appointed. Document) London Plan, e.g. density, parking standards, gypsy and traveller provision.

Tolworth Area Action To enhance pedestrian March 2005 July 2008 Project planning in progress. Need to consider how to Plan (Development Plan environment, access to the rail build upon the community engagement and feasibility Document) station and regenerate areas south and design work already being done to improve the of the A3. pedestrian environment of Tolworth.

Hogsmill Valley North To promote the enhancement and March 2005 July 2008 Evidence base being developed, and project planning in /Kingsmeadow Area use of this area of the Hogsmill progress. Action Plan (Development Valley and adjacent sites, identify Plan Document) appropriate development opportunities and review the MOL boundary.

Access for All Guidance on inclusive design April 2004 June 2005 The SPD and accompanying sustainability appraisal (Supplementary Planning aimed particularly at smaller went out for consultation on 3rd May as set out in Local Document) builders and developers Development Scheme.

Shop Fronts and Shop Reviews current advice in the SPG July 2004 June 2005 The SPD and accompanying sustainability appraisal Front Design which seeks to achieve a higher went out for consultation on 3rd May as set out in Local (Supplementary Planning standard of design for new shop Development Scheme. Document) frontages.

Kingston University, To guide future development on November February 2006 Work commenced. Design opportunities and constraints Knights Park, Kingston this important site. 2004 being considered. (Supplementary Planning Document)

Affordable Housing To provide detailed guidance to September February 2006 Early engagement and background review commenced (Supplementary Planning assist the effective implementation 2004 with scrutiny of affordable housing as a topic by Document) of affordable housing policy. Resident Services Overview Panel Working Group.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\1\4\0\AI00003041\DQPMRFull20051vF0.doc D6

Document Purpose Commence Adoption Progress report preparation

Thames Policy Area To help achieve environmental February 2006 Early stakeholder engagement proposed for Summer (Supplementary Planning improvements and appropriate 2005. Document) development along the River Thames

Residential Design To provide practical guidance on July 2006 A further meeting of Southern Branch of ‘Urban Design (Supplementary Planning how to optimise the use of land London’ is being held in mid May 2005. This is to Document) and protect local character in discuss the initial stage of the study to assemble an residential development. information base. From there Boroughs will prepare there own SPDs. Kingston University, To review and update existing November July 2006 Start Nov 05 Kingston Hill brief. 2005 (Supplementary Planning Document)

The UDP will form part of the LDF for a time as its policies are ‘saved’ for three years from adoption or until replaced by new LDF policies.

Adoption of the UDP in February was stopped by a direction from the First Secretary of State to alter the affordable housing site threshold (Policy H9) and the parking standards for employment uses. Resulting Modifications have been subject to public consultation during April/May, with adoption anticipated in the autumn.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\1\4\0\AI00003041\DQPMRFull20051vF0.doc

SECTION 2: DEVELOPMENT CONTROL MONITORING 7. In this section we review some of the development control planning performance indicators, analysing performance at both borough and neighbourhood level. The indicators monitored are : (1) the number of decisions made and (2) the speed of decision making (BVPI 109).

2.1i. Decisions Made - Borough-wide 8. The figure below illustrates the number of decisions made by quarter over the past three and a half years.

900 800 700 600 500 400 300

Number of Decisions 200 100 0 09/01 12/01 03/02 06/02 09/02 12/02 03/03 06/03 09/03 12/03 03/04 06/04 09/04 12/04 03/05 Quarter Ending

Figure 2.1 : Decisions Made 9. The most recent quarter saw a total of 565 applications determined. The total was marginally up on the previous quarter (the December quarter), and is the highest March quarter for the last three years.

10. The longer-term analysis reveals distinct seasonal patterns - the middle quarters in each year (those ending June and September) generate more decisions than the first and last quarters (those ending March and December). The analysis also reveals a gradual longer-term increase in the number of decisions made.

2.1ii. Decisions Made in the Latest Quarter – Neighbourhoods 11. The figure below identifies the number of determinations within the “major”, “minor” and “other” categories1 in the most recent quarter by neighbourhood.

12. Maldens and Coombe once again records the highest total number of applications determined in the quarter for all three categories. The most frequent applications within the “other” category continue to be the householder cases (accounting for around 40% of “other”).

1 The ODPM definitions for the three classes of application are as follows : Major – More than 10 dwellings or 1,000 square metres or 1 hectare or more of offices / research and development / light industry, retail, distribution and servicing, and all other major developments. Minor – Less than 10 dwellings or 0.5 hectares or under 1,000 square metres or 1 hectare of: offices / research and development / light industry, retail, distribution and servicing, and all other minor developments. Other – Householder developments, advertisements, changes of use listed building and conservation area consents and minerals developments.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\1\4\0\AI00003041\DQPMRFull20051vF0.doc

Figure 2.2 : Number of Applications Determined by Neighbourhood, Jan – Mar 2005

250

200

150

100

Number of Determinations 50

0 Kingston Town Maldens & Coombe South of the Borough Surbiton

Major Minor Other

13.

2.2i. Speed of Decision Making – Borough-wide (BVPI 109) 14. The Government sets targets for planning application processing for “Major”, “Minor”, and “Other” applications. The table below indicates performance as a whole over the past four quarters disaggregated into the three categories of application, and sets this against the Government’s performance time targets.

Table 2.1 : Speed of Decision – performance over the last four quarters Quarter Major Minor Other End (National Target 60% (National Target 65% (National Target 80% in 13 wks) in 8 wks) in 8 wks) Within Total %Within Total %Within Total % 13 Decision 8 Decision 8 Decisions weeks s weeks s weeks 06/04 11 19 58 41 69 59 426 564 76 09/04 3 9 33 55 83 66 600 684 88 12/04 7 13 54 51 81 63 404 456 89 03/05 6 11 55 67 89 75 408 465 88 Last 12 27 52 52 214 322 661,838 2,169 85 months 15. Performance in the determination of the “Major” applications continues to hover below the national 60% target, but has improved consistently over the last three quarters. The recent improvement in performance reflects the changes introduced to the project management of “Major” applications.

16. The performance in respect of the determination of “Minor” applications in the quarter ending March 2005 (75% determined within the 8-week target) was much improved on the previous quarter, exceeds the Government 60% target by a

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\1\4\0\AI00003041\DQPMRFull20051vF0.doc

comfortable margin and indeed was the best performance over the past year. The improvement has raised the aggregate 04/05 performance figure to 1% above the government’s 65% target despite the higher through-put of decisions

17. Determination of “Other” applications continues to remain at a consistently high level, comfortably above the government’s 80% target.

18. In the table below we compare RBK performance against that of the other 32 London Authorities using data from ODPM that is based on the percentage of all applications decided within the 8-week limit. The data sets out the aggregate annual rankings for the full years between 01/02 and 03/04, and is quarterly for the last year 04/05.

Table 2.2 : Speed of Decision – Performance Measured Ag’st Other London B’ghs Annual1/ Major Minor Other Overall % Overall Qtr Applications Applications Application within 8 Rank2 Ended s weeks 01/02 15th 7th 4th 72 3rd 02/03 17th 19th 11th 69 10th 03/04 28th 23rd 16th 76 14th Jun/04 13th 29th 22nd 73 21st Sept/04 31st 27th 14th 85 8th Dec/04 20th 30th 12th 83 15th Mar/05 20th (E) 14th (E) 13th (E) 85 9th (E)* 1 The annual data is financial year. 2 The overall rank is based on all determinations within 8 weeks – i.e. including the “Majors” determined in 8 rather than 13 weeks. Source – ODPM provide national data, which we use to calculate RBK’s London ranking. However, the ODPM data are not available for the latest quarter, and we therefore provide an estimate (E) based on past performance. 19. We forecast that RBK’s overall rank in the latest quarter will improve to around 9th in London overall, which would be a marked improvement on the previous quarter and will largely result from the significant improvement in the “Minor” category.

20. The table indicates that RBK’s overall rank has been quite volatile over time, even though the overall percentage figures (the end column of Table 2.2) have been fairly consistent. This volatility is due to the “bunching” of the performance of all the London boroughs, with relatively minor changes in performance leading to disproportionate changes in ranking.

21. Figure 2.3 shows the longer-term trends.

* The potential for the overall rank figure to be better than the individual performance in each application category is explained by variation in the performance of some other London Boroughs. RBK has performed reasonably well in the “other” and “minor” categories (which collectively account for the vast majority of decisions), whilst other boroughs will have performed well in one category and not so well the in other.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\1\4\0\AI00003041\DQPMRFull20051vF0.doc

D10

100% 90% 80% 70% 60%

% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 Year Major Minor Other

Figure 2.3 : Planning Application Speed of Decision – Trends 22. After two years of gradual decline in the speed of determination of applications in the “Major” category, performance has improved significantly over the last year, and is closer to the government 13-week target of 60%. Performance in both of the other two categories - the “Minor” and “Other” applications, shows similar profiles - continuing steady improvement since 02/03, following decline from the performance in 01/02.

2.2ii Speed of all Determinations – Neighbourhood 23. The table below compares the absolute number of decisions taken in the last quarter overall in the borough, by neighbourhood, and also the proportion of decisions determined within the Government’s targets.

Table 2.3 : Planning Application Speed of Determinations by N’hood Jan- Mar 2004 OVERALL Kingston Maldens & South of the Surbiton Town Coombe Borough Total no. % Total no. % Total no. % Total no. % Total no. % decisions within decisions within decisions within decisions within decisions within target target target target target Major 60% in 13 wks 11 55% 2 50% 4 50% 2 50% 3 67% Minor 65% in 8 wks 89 75% 15 80% 36 61% 11 82% 28 86% Other 80% in 8 wks 465 88% 153 86% 164 82% 59 100% 85 92% 24. We do not draw any findings from the neighbourhood performance in respect of the “Major” applications determined in the quarter due to the very small number of cases.

25. There is wide variation in performance between the neighbourhoods within the “Minor” application category, where performance varies from the 61% achieved by Maldens and Coombe to 86% in Surbiton. Maldens and Coombe experienced the highest through-put in this category of application, a total of 36.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\1\4\0\AI00003041\DQPMRFull20051vF0.doc

D11

26. All neighbourhoods performed well on “Other” applications and the South of the Borough neighbourhood team achieved the noteworthy 100%.

SECTION 3 HOUSING 27. In this section we assess Borough-wide performance over the past 12 months in respect of (1) the number of housing completions achieved and (2) the number of housing planning permissions granted.

3.1i Completions in the Past 12 months 28. In order to meet the housing provision targets set out in the London Plan the Borough needs to provide a minimum of an additional 340 dwellings per annum, equating to 85 per quarter2. It is worthy of note that whilst the Council can influence the supply of planning permissions it has no control over the rate of completions.

200 180 160 140 120 100 80

No. completions 60 40 20 Date 0 3/04 03/04 6/04 9/04 12/04 03/05 04/05 average average

Brownfield 03/04 Brownfield 04/05 Greenfield target

Figure 3.1 : Housing Completions – Past 12 Months

nb latest quarter figures are an estimate, and figures from the previous quarter have been adjusted following late completion statistics. The averages for years 03/04 and 04/05 are financial year.

29. Completion rates on a quarterly (143 completions in the latest quarter, up from 100 in the previous quarter) and annual basis continue to be above the minimum targets set by the London Plan. However, the average completions in 04/05 were some 15% below those for 03/04, which is consistent with the diminishing phased targets approach set out in the First Alteration UDP, which expects fewer completions as large sites are used up.

2 This figure is the 1997-2016 annualised minimum target including non-self contained units such as student accommodation and homes for the elderly. Subject to the findings in the Housing Capacity Study and the review of the London Plan, the annualised minimum target may change in 2006. This is in accordance with the London Plan Policy 3A.1 and the requirement to periodically review the dwelling targets for London.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\1\4\0\AI00003041\DQPMRFull20051vF0.doc

D12

30. The graph also shows that RBK continues to maintain 100% completions on brownfield land. The government target for this is 60% although it is expected to be much higher in urban areas.

3.2i Planning Permissions in Past 12 Months 31. A healthy pipeline of planning permissions is critical to ensuring that the Borough continues to meet its minimum housing requirement targets. We therefore monitor the number of planning permissions granted and the dwellings that these will potentially yield.

32. The table below details the total number of housing permissions and the potential yield of additional dwellings by quarter over the past year.

Table 3.1 : Planning Permissions in Past 12 Months

Quarter Permissions Additional Ending Granted Dwellings no. units Jun-04 14 83 Sep-04 27 87 Dec-04 31 341 Mar-05 25 77 Annual 97 588 33. After the relatively high number of permissions, and extremely high dwelling yield (resulting from two very large sites - Skerne Road and Surbiton sorting office) in the December 2004 quarter, the latest quarter saw a return to figures in line with the previous quarters.

34. Permissions in the latest quarter yielded the lowest quarterly number of dwellings, averaging 3 per permission. For the next quarterly report we will research this issue more thoroughly.

3.2ii Dwellings in the Extant Planning Permissions “Bank” 35. In order to plan to achieve the housing construction minimum targets it is informative to identify the Borough’s “bank” of permitted dwellings, and monitor changes to this over time. The “bank” comprises the yield of residential units from new and unimplemented permissions, and is set out in the table below.

Table 3.2 : Dwellings in the Extant Planning Permissions Bank Dwellings Permitted but not built (brought forward from previous quarter) 640 New Dwelling Permissions in the Quarter + 77 Dwellings Completed in the Quarter - 143 Total Dwellings Permitted but not built (carry forward) = 574 NB: The “Dwellings Permitted but not built” figure may include a relatively small number of lapsed permissions and therefore may over-estimate the bank. We aim to account for the lapsed permissions in future reports. We have also made adjustments from the previous report to exclude dwellings under-construction to avoid potential double counting in the data.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\1\4\0\AI00003041\DQPMRFull20051vF0.doc

D13

36. The table shows that construction activity in the quarter was roughly double that of the yield of new dwellings permissions entering the “bank”. This is a relatively new statistic added to the quarterly reports and as time progresses we will have data that can be used to chart the movement in the “bank” of extant permissions for dwellings. SECTION 4: PLANNING APPEALS 37. In this section we assess the Council’s performance in terms of (1) the determination of planning appeals and (2) appeal performance on Committee and Delegated decisions. Of particular importance is the proportion of planning appeals that are allowed against Council decisions to refuse permission, as this is now a Best Value Performance Indicator (BVPI 204).

4.1i Determination of Appeals 38. The table below summarises annual appeal determination performance for the two years prior to 04/05, and for the last year performance by quarter. The data sets out the total number of appeal decisions made, the proportions allowed and dismissed, and also the decisions made under delegated powers and by Committee.

Table 4.1 : Determination of Appeals Annual / Total no. Allowed Dismis Allowed1 Dismissed Quarter of sed Ended Appeals DelegatedCommittee Delegated Committee no. % % no.% no. % no. % no. % 02/03 100 34 66 28 35 6 29 51 65 15 71 03/04 146 42 58 34 33 27 63 69 67 16 37 June/2004 21 33 67 4 29 3 43 10 71 4 57 Sept/2004 26 62 38 12 60 4 67 8 40 2 33 Dec/2004 32 41 59 7 32 6 60 15 68 4 40 March/2005 21 38 62 6 43 2 29 8 57 5 71 04/05 100 44 56 2941 1550 41 59 1550

NB the annual figures are financial year. The “Past 12 months” figures cover the period Jan to Dec 2004 1 the percentages given are discrete to the delegated and Committee groupings (i.e. the 29% appeals allowed following a delegated decision in the quarter ending June 2004 is calculated thus : 4/14).

39. The final quarter of 04/05 saw a comparatively modest number of appeal cases (a total of 21). The majority of the cases (14 of the 21) concern appeals lodged on decisions made under delegated powers. However, this is not surprising given that approximately 90% of all RBK applications are determined via this route. The total for the 04/05 year, at 100 is substantially down on the total for 03/04, and returns the number of appeal cases to the levels experienced in 02/03.

40. The appeal dismissed rate for Committee decisions has improved markedly in the most recent quarter, with five of the seven cases dismissed – a rate of 71%. This will need to be sustained over the long term to return performance to the high levels experienced in the year 02/03.

41. The proportion of appeals dismissed following delegated decisions reduced in the last quarter to 57% (eight of the 14) from 68% in the December quarter. This latest

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\1\4\0\AI00003041\DQPMRFull20051vF0.doc

D14

quarter is the only one in 04/05 where the dismissal rate for Committee cases out- performed that of delegated cases.

4.1ii Appeals Allowed Over the Past Three Years 42. The total number of Council decisions (both delegated and Committee decisions) to refuse consent, which proceed to appeal and are allowed by the Inspectorate, is now the subject of a Best Value Indicator (BVPI 204). However, there is as yet no national target. Below, we assess the proportion of appeals allowed over the past three years and compare performance for RBK against a Greater London average for the earlier years.

70 60

50 40 30 % Allowed % 20

10 0 03/02 06/02 09/02 12/02 03/03 06/03 09/03 12/03 03/04 06/04 09/04 12/04 03/05 Quarter Ending

Allowed London figure Trend

Figure 4.2 : Appeals Allowed

Nb the Gtr London figure is a twelve month average. Data is not yet available for the last financial year. 43. We are currently unable to compare performance with London in 04/05, as the data is not yet available.

44. The trend in the total number of RBK appeals allowed has risen slightly in the last year. Given that the proportion of appeals allowed is now a BVPI, we shall provide further analysis of appeal decisions to identify if there are trends that point to a need to strengthen or revise policy, or to advise Committees of where the risks are greatest in overturning Officer recommendations to approve.

4.2 Decisions on RBK Refusals – Delegated Compared to C’ttee 45. Below we analyse Inspectorate decisions, firstly on delegated and then on Committee refusals.

46. The chart below shows Inspectorate decisions on appeals following delegated decisions to refuse, by quarter, for the three years to March 2005.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\1\4\0\AI00003041\DQPMRFull20051vF0.doc

D15

Figure 4.2 : Decisions on Appeals of Delegated Refusals - 2002 – 2005 35

Number of cases of Number 10

0 03/02 06/02 09/02 12/02 03/03 06/03 09/03 12/03 03/04 06/04 09/04 12/04 03/05 Quarter Ending Allowed Dismissed

47. The chart shows that in most quarters broadly two-thirds of appeals are dismissed. However, there is some variation in performance with reduced success in the quarter ending September 2004.

Figure 4.3 : Inspectorate Decisions on Appeals of C’ttee Refusals - 2002 - 2005

Number of cases 4

0 03/02 06/02 09/02 12/02 03/03 06/03 09/03 12/03 03/04 06/04 09/04 12/04 03/05 Quarter Ending

Allowed - Recommendation followed Allowed - Rec Overturned Dismissed 48.

49. The figure above illustrates decisions on Committee refusals by quarter over the past three years. It disaggregates the decisions into three types – (i) appeals allowed following Committee refusals that were in accordance with Officer recommendation; (ii) appeals allowed following Committee decision to overturn the Officer recommendation to grant permission; and finally (iii) appeals dismissed following refusal by Committee.

50. The chart dealing with Committee refusals shows a much more irregular pattern. In some quarters three out of four appeals have been allowed, in other quarters (notably the most recent) performance is much better.

51. The chart demonstrates that overall during the past three years only approximately one in every three appeals have been dismissed. The proportion of appeal cases allowed divides fairly evenly between cases where Officer recommendation was

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\1\4\0\AI00003041\DQPMRFull20051vF0.doc

D16

followed and cases where the recommendation were overturned. The period when most Committee decisions were overturned by the Inspectorate was 2003, although the last two quarters of 2004 also saw a high number of cases. The most recent quarter saw a marked improvement with over two-thirds of appeals dismissed.

52. Annex 1 of this report gives details of all the appeals decided during the latest quarter. The Annex sets out the Officer recommendation/decision and Committee / Inspectorate decisions.

SECTION 5: ENFORCEMENT 53. In this section we set out some of the key statistics used to measure performance of the planning enforcement service. We address (1) the number of new cases actioned, then (2) the number of days before first action, next (3) the number and reasons for new notices served, before finally (4) the number of cases closed and reasons for closure. We are currently reviewing our analysis of the enforcement data and will provide a more analytical approach in future reports.

5.1 Enforcement Cases Actioned 54. The figure below sets out by quarter the number of cases actioned and the number and proportion actioned within the response time target (10 days from registration).

5.1 - Cases actioned Cases Ave Days to % First Actioned First Action Action within 10 days

30/06/01 140 8 71 30/09/01 122 11 52 31/12/01 38 7 84 31/03/02 79 7 85 30/06/02 46 1 71 30/09/02 70 14 67 31/12/02 55 11 65 31/03/03 21 17 62 30/06/03 43 11 56 30/09/03 38 12 53 31/12/03 24 8 67 31/03/04 38 12 20 30/06/04 33 14 45 30/09/04 53 8 53 31/12/04 9 10 67 31/03/05 8 14 38

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\1\4\0\AI00003041\DQPMRFull20051vF0.doc

D17

5.2 New Notices Served 55. The table below identifies the number and type of new notices served over the past 12 months.

Table 5.3 : Notices Served Qtr Ending Planning Breach of Enforce- Stop Injunc- Injunction Contraventi Condition ment tions Appeals on Refused 31/03/04 0 2 2 0 0 0 30/06/04 0 1 4 0 0 0 30/09/04 3 1 12 0 0 0 31/12/04 0 1 0 0 0 0 31/03/05 0 0 1 0 0 0

5.4 Enforcement Case Closures 56. The table below summarises the enforcement cases that have been closed this last quarter and the reasons for closure.

Table 5.4 : Cases Closed Reasons For Case Closure Qtr Cases By Valid Further No Other Average Ending Closed Nego- Application Action Breach Days to tiation Received Not of Closure Expedient Planning Control 03/04 96 27 14 4 29 22 194 06/04 115 28 19 7 28 33 208 09/04 159 40 1 17 39 62 247 12/04 63 8 0 9 19 27 225 03/05 89 12 3 18 23 33 323

SECTION 6: CUSTOMER FEEDBACK 57. A customer satisfaction survey is routinely undertaken as part of the development control process, and in this report we draw out some of the critical factors corresponding to the issues recorded by BVPI 111. The analysis considers (1) the level of satisfaction with the service, (2) the complaints received and the speed of response to complaints and (3) the issues raised by complainants.

6.1 Level of Satisfaction 58. Customers were asked “How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the service provided in processing your application?”

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\1\4\0\AI00003041\DQPMRFull20051vF0.doc

D18

59.

Table 6.1 : Satisfaction with Service Provided Qtr % who were % who were Ending satisfied / very dissatisfied / very satisfied dissatisfied 03/04 72 16 06/04 69 14 09/04 77 15 12/04 84 10 03/05 73 17 60. The level of satisfaction with the service continues to be high, although the figures for the latest quarter show a decrease from the very high levels in the preceding quarter. The table demonstrates that satisfaction with the service was consistent with satisfaction in the corresponding quarter last year (‘03/04).

6.2 Complaints Received and Speed of Response 61. The table below summarises the number of complaints received about the service provided3, and also assesses the performance with dealing with the complaints within the prescribed target time period.

Table 6.2: Complaints and Proportion Dealt with within 10 days Qtr Complaints Dealt with within Ended Received 10 days 03/04 454 91% 06/04 12 75% 09/04 15 50% 12/04 5 0% 03/05 13 8% 62. After the extremely low number of complaints received in the quarter ending December 2004, the number of complaints received has returned to around the average longer-term quarterly level.

63. Response times in the past two quarters have dramatically reduced from those achieved in early to mid-2004 and needs to be addressed.

6.3 Issues Raised 64. Below, we identify the particular issues raised by complainants in the most recent quarter. The 13 complainants identified a total of 29 issues, and these are summarised in the following table.

3 Not all of those who are dissatisfied (i.e. the percentages referred to in the preceding table) make formal complaints about the service 4 The 45 complaints included 35 lodged in relation to applications for Chessington World of Adventures

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\1\4\0\AI00003041\DQPMRFull20051vF0.doc

D19

65.

Table 6.3 - Issues Raised by Complainants Category of Issue Referrals Lack of, or delay of, response to correspondence and phone calls 9 Dissatisfaction with decisions made by the Council 11 Inadequate consultation arrangements 2 Delay in taking appropriate action 0 Poor quality of advice given by Council 7 Other 0 66. The number and type of complaints matches the longer-term pattern, with the highest number of complaints relating to the actual decision made. The relatively high number of complaints about the lack of response/delay in responding is again an aspect where action to remedy needs to be promptly addressed. SECTION 7 : BUILDING CONTROL 67. In this section we present monitoring statistics for the building control service. Statistics are presented on (1) the number of applications and their fee earning status, (2) the proportion of applications checked within the target 10 days from receipt, and (3) customer satisfaction with the service.

7.1 Building Control Applications Received and Fee Earning Status 68. The figure below sets out the total number of Building Control Applications received and their fee earning status5.

Figure 7.1 – Applications Received and Fee Earning Status 600

500

400

300

200 no. of applications of no.

100

0 06/01 09/01 12/01 03/02 06/02 09/02 12/02 03/03 06/03 09/03 12/03 03/04 06/04 09/04 12/04 03/05 Quarter ending

Fee earning Non-Fee earning

69. The long-term trend for building control applications continues to be upwards. The latest quarter saw almost 540 applications lodged, which was the second highest total in the past four years, and is the highest March quarter total over that period.

5 Not all Building Control applications generate fees; some applications, such as responding to dangerous structures, demolitions and unauthorised work do not attract a fee, and others are dealt with via Approved Inspectors.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\1\4\0\AI00003041\DQPMRFull20051vF0.doc

D20

70. The ratio of fee-earning to non-fee earning cases has remained fairly consistent over the four year period at around 4:1. However, the latest quarter is notable for a higher proportion of non-fee earning cases, which is approaching one in three.

7.2 Applications checked within 10 days 71. The figure below monitors the proportion of applications checked within the target 10-day period over the past four years.

100 90 80 70 60 50 40

% of applications 30 20 10 0 06/01 09/01 12/01 03/02 06/02 09/02 12/02 03/03 06/03 09/03 12/03 03/04 06/04 09/04 12/04 03/05 Quarter ending

Figure 7.2 - Building Control Full Plan Applications Checked Within 10 Days 72. The graph demonstrates that the service maintains a very high level of performance, with over 90% of all new cases checked within 10 days of receipt.

7.3 Customer Satisfaction 73. The following figure assesses customer satisfaction with the checking of plans and site inspection service provided by the Building Control service.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\1\4\0\AI00003041\DQPMRFull20051vF0.doc

D21

Figure 7.3 - Customer Satisfaction – (% of customers ranking the service good /very good)

95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60

% very satisfied/satisfied 55 50 06/01 09/01 12/01 03/02 06/02 09/02 12/02 03/03 06/03 09/03 12/03 03/04 06/04 09/04 12/04 03/05 Quarter ending

74. The level of satisfaction has been consistently high for the past four years, and it is only the two most recent quarters that performance has dropped below 85%. However, even in the lowest performing quarter (that ending Dec 04) three quarters of customers considered the service either good or very good. SECTION 8 : ORDERS RELATING TO TREES 75. In this section we review the performance of the service dealing with orders relating to trees. We monitor – (1) the number of new tree preservation orders issued and (2) the number of applications determined in respect of trees subject to TPOs.

8.1 Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) Issued 76. The Council issues TPOs in response to requests from residents, pressure from development and in response to applications within Conservation Areas. In order for a TPO to be made the tree has to be healthy, have a reasonable life expectancy and a certain degree of public benefit must accrue. There are currently approximately 50,000 trees in the borough covered by TPOs. This number is difficult to quantify precisely as large tracts of wooded land, generally in the north of the Borough, are protected by Area Classification TPOs. The table below identifies the numbers of TPOs made in recent years.

Table 8.1 TPOs Issued Calendar Year TPOs Issued 2002 27 2003 41 2004 11 77. The table demonstrates that relatively few new TPOs have been issued in recent years. This reflects the fact that with such a vast number of trees already protected there is diminishing need to issue new orders.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\1\4\0\AI00003041\DQPMRFull20051vF0.doc

D22

8.2 Tree Preservation Order (TPO) Applications Decided 78. The table below identifies the number of TPO decisions made, and also the number and proportion made within the eight-week target over the past four quarters.

Table 8.2 Decisions on TPOs Qtr Total Cases Approve Refuse Withdrawn Total Decided Ending Considered Within 8 Wks1 no. no. % no. % no. % no. % 06/04 36 33 92 1 3 2 6 10 29 09/04 44 30 68 920 5 11 9 23 12/04 120 77 64 65 37 31 22 27 03/05 46 45 98 0 0 1 2 12 27 1 The percentages decided within 8 weeks exclude withdrawn applications 79. After the unusually high number of cases considered in the quarter ending December 2004 the number of decisions has returned to the longer-term level of circa 40. The vast majority of applications are approved, with relatively small numbers being refused. In a future report we shall explore how many refusals, if any, are the subject of appeals.

80. The proportion of cases decided within the target 8-week period has remained very consistent over the past year, at around one quarter.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\1\4\0\AI00003041\DQPMRFull20051vF0.doc D23 Annex 1

Ref’ No Address Description Appeal Status Decision Type

Decided Appeals - Maldens & Coombe 03/15017/F 67 Cleveland Road, New Erection of a first floor rear extension. (Re- Written DEL Appeal UL Malden, KT3 3QJ drawn Plans) Reps Dismissed 04/14223/F 253 Malden Road, Worcester Formation of Vehicular Crossover (driveway Written DEL Appeal UL Park, KT3 6AG across the pavement) Reps Dismissed 04/14228/F 33 Ancaster Crescent, New Erection of first floor side extension Written DEL Appeal UL Malden, KT3 6BD Reps Dismissed 04/14260/F 85 Malden Hill, New Malden, Erection of 1.68m high fencing on front and Written DEL Appeal UL KT3 4DS side boundaries Reps Dismissed

Decided Appeals in South of the Borough

04/10028/F Accessory House, Cox Lane, Installation of 3 additional telecommunications Written DEL Appeal UL Chessington antennas on roof, (O2) Reps Allowed 04/10047/F 355 Hook Rise South, Erection of single storey rear extension and Written DEL Appeal UL Surbiton, KT6 7LW two storey side extension Reps Allowed 04/10051/F 324 Hook Rise North, Addition of first and second floors to form 1 x Written DEL Appeal UL Surbiton, KT6 7LN 2 bedroom flat. Retention of existing shop Reps Dismissed premises with alterations to shop front to facilitate access to upstairs flats. 04/10080/F Rear Of, 80-92 Leatherhead Erection of terrace of 6 two storey (2x2 Written DEL Appeal UL Road, Chessington bedroom and 4x3 bedroom) houses with Reps Allowed integral garages and parking

04/10214/F 79 Bolton Road, Chessington, Erection of hip to gable roof extension and Written DEL Appeal UL KT9 2JF rear roof dormer to facilitate loft conversion Reps Dismissed

Decided Appeals in Kingston Town 03/12617/F 56 Clifton Road, Kingston Retention of rear dormer roof extension and Informal COMM Appeal UL Upon Thames, KT2 6PJ second floor rear addition Hearing Allowed

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\1\4\0\AI00003041\DQPMRFull20051vF0.doc D24 Annex 1

Ref’ No Address Description Appeal Status Decision Type

03/12618/F 54 Clifton Road, Kingston Retention of rear dormer roof extension and Informal COMM Appeal UL Upon Thames, KT2 6PJ second floor rear addition Hearing Allowed 03/12848/F 31 Orchard Road, Kingston Formation of vehicular crossover (driveway Written DEL Appeal UL Upon Thames, KT1 2QP across pavement) Reps Allowed 04/12128/F Land at rear of 21 Uxbridge Erection of one single storey 2 bedroom Written DEL Appeal UL Road, Kingston upon Thames, house with room in roof and integral garage Reps Allowed KT1 2LH with access from driveway adjacent to 19 Catherine Road 04/12202/F 44 Coombe Road, Kingston Erection of first floor rear extension Written DEL Appeal UL Upon Thames, KT2 7AF Reps Dismissed

Decided Appeals in Surbiton 03/16568/F 43-51 Tolworth Broadway, Removal of Condition 2 of planning Informal COMM Appeal UL Surbiton permission 02/08067 concerning opening Hearing Dismissed hours of public house

03/16627/F 12 Avenue Elmers, Surbiton, Demolition of existing bungalow and erection Informal DEL Appeal UL KT6 4SF of a terrace of three houses. Two of three Hearing Dismissed storeys and one of two storeys with an additional attic room, all with parking 03/16632/F 87a-93, Maple Road, Surbiton Conversion of 91/93 to 6 one bed flats. Written COMM Appeal UL Conversion of 87A to 4 two bedroom flats, Reps Dismissed provision of courtyard, refuse storage and general storage unit. 04/16025/F 3-5 Lamberts Road, Surbiton Demolition of 3 Lamberts Road and part of 5 Informal COMM Appeal UL Lamberts Road. Erection of detached part 4 Hearing Dismissed storey, part 2 storey to provide 14 residential units, with associated parking, cycle storage and bin store. 04/16113/F 12 St Marys Road, Surbiton, Retention of use as 2 x 2 bedroom self Informal COMM Appeal

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\1\4\0\AI00003041\DQPMRFull20051vF0.doc D25 Annex 1

Ref’ No Address Description Appeal Status Decision Type

UL KT6 4JG contained flats with new side entrance to Hearing Dismissed facilitate access to first floor flat 04/16231/F 3-5 Lamberts Road, Surbiton Demolition of 3 Lamberts Road and part of 5 Informal COMM Appeal UL Lamberts Road. Erection of detached part 4 Hearing Dismissed storey, part 3 storey, part 2 storey building to provide 14 residential units, with associated parking, cycle storage and bin store. 04/16232/O 105 Chiltern Drive, Surbiton, Demolition of existing garage. Erection of Written DEL Appeal UT KT5 8LR detached two storey 3 x bedroom dwelling Reps Allowed with associated parking

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\1\4\0\AI00003041\DQPMRFull20051vF0.doc 26 Annex 2 Royal Borough of Kingston: Timelines for Local Development Documents Document N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Statement of Community Involvement PP S E A Kingston Town Centre AAP PP S E A DPD Core Strategy DPD C PP S E A A First Devt Control Policies DPD C PP S E A A Tolworth AAP C PP S E A A Hogsmill Valley/ Kingsmeadow AAP C PP S E A A Site-specific allocations DPD C PP Second Devt Control Policies DPD C PP

Access for All SPD PP A Shop Fronts Design Guide SPD PP A Affordable Housing SPD PP A

Kingston University, Knights Park SPD C PP A Thames Policy Area SPD PP A Residential Design SPD C PP A Kingston University, Kingston Hill SPD C PP A Surbiton Hospital Site SPD C PP A Infrastructure & Services through C PP Planning Obligations SPD Key: S = Submit to Secretary of State C = Commence preparation, gather evidence and engage stakeholders E = Examination PP = Public Participation on preferred options A = Adoption

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\1\4\0\AI00003041\DQPMRFull20051vF0.doc