Agenda Reports Pack (Public) 09/06/2011, 19.30

For enquiries on this agenda please contact David Maher 020 8547 5062 e-mail:[email protected]

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

1 June 2011

A meeting of the DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE will be held at the Guildhall, Kingston upon Thames on THURSDAY 9 JUNE 2011 at 7:30 pm

Members of the Committee

Councillor Vicki Harris (Chair) Councillor Frances Moseley (Vice Chair) Councillor Geoff Austin Councillor David Cunningham Councillor David Ryder-Mills Councillor Ken Smith Councillor Chrissie Hitchcock Councillor Richard Hudson Councillor Malcolm Self

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, enforcement action or tree preservation orders if they have: (a) previously responded to the consultation on an application; and (b) registered THREE days before the meeting to do so.

Full details of the arrangements for speaking at the meeting can be found on page 3.

Deadline for registering to speak at this meeting: 10:00am Tuesday 7 June 2011 . Contact - David Maher 020 8547 5062 e-mail:[email protected] about registering to speak.

AGENDA

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND ATTENDANCE OF ALTERNATE MEMBERS

DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS

1. MINUTES

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 28 April 2011.

2. PLANNING APPLICATIONS Appendix A

3. PLANNING DELEGATIONS Appendix B

4. URGENT ITEMS AUTHORISED BY THE CHAIR

DATES OF FUTURE MEETINGS: 21 July 2011 14 December 2011 21 September 2011 25 January 2012 3 November 2011 22 March 2012 Meetings to be held at the Guildhall, High Street, Kingston starting at 7.30pm.

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.

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 – David Maher 020 8547 5062 e-mail:[email protected] about registering to speak.

Deadline for registering to speak: 10:00am Tuesday 7 June 2011 .

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. 3

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 2. Objector/s (5 minutes ) (or - for enforcement action - the land / property owner) 3. Applicant (5 minutes ) (or supporter/s of the enforcement action) 4. Questions from Committee: a) to Objector/s (5 minutes ) (or – for enforcement action – the land / property owner) b) to Applicant (5 minutes ) (or supporter/s of the enforcement action) 5. Sweep up by Planning Officer 6 Questions from Committee to Officers 7. Debate and decision by Committee

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

APPENDIX A

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL NEIGHBOURHOOD COMMITTEE

THURSDAY 09 JUNE 2011 REPORT BY INTERIM HEAD OF PLANNING PLANNING APPLICATIONS

INDEX

ITEM REGISTER ADDRESS DESCRIPTION RECOMMENDATION PAGE NO NO NO

A1 10/12832 Town End Pier, High Street, New 40 metres (approx) of floating PERMIT A2 Kingston Upon Thames, KT1 pontoons with pilings into the river bed 1HN and the provision of 2 new residential houseboats. A2 11/12131 Railway Wharf, Down Hall Change of use to permanent residential REFUSE A16 Road, Kingston Upon Thames moorings for two boats A3 11/16067 St Andrews And St Marks Erection of 2no. single storey modular PERMIT A29 Primary School, Maple Road, classrooms with covered walkway Surbiton, KT6 4AL A4 11/16097 Tolworth Junior School, School Erection of an open-sided lean-to on PERMIT A42 Lane, Surbiton, KT6 7SA part of the north elevation of Tolworth Junior School A5 11/16136 Dysart School, 186 Ewell Road, Proposed external works including PERMIT A50 Surbiton, KT6 6HL erection of a single storey classroom, installation of shade sail and partial enclosure of existing canopy and installation of timber decking

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

9 JUNE 2011

REPORT BY THE INTERIM HEAD OF PLANNING

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 First Alteration

Development Control Committee

Date of Meeting: 09/06/2011

A1 Register No : 10/12832/FUL

Address : TOWN END PIER, HIGH STREET, KINGSTON UPON THAMES, KT1 1HN

(c) Crown Copyright. All right reserved. Royal Borough of Kingston 2007. Licence number 100019285. [Please note that this plan is intended to assist in locating the development it is not the site plan of the proposed development which may have different boundaries. Please refer to the application documents for the proposed site boundaries.] A2

Ward : Grove Description of Proposal : New 40 metres (approx) of floating pontoons with pilings into the river bed and the provision of 2 new residential houseboats. Plan Type : Full Application Expiry Date : 02/05/2011

Applicant's Plan Nos :

3375:01 Received 05/04/2011 3375:01A Existing Mooring Plan Received 21/12/2010 Block Plan Received 21/12/2010 Flood Risk Assessment Received 21/12/2010 Flood Warning & Evacuation Plan Received 31/01/2011 letter from Turks dated 22/10/10 Received 07/03/2011 Pilings Information Received 07/03/2011 Planning Statement Received 03/05/2011 Pontoon Information Received 07/03/2011 Proposed Liveaboard Moorings Received 12/01/2011 Revised Design & Access Statement Received 07/03/2011 Site Location Plan Received 21/12/2010

BASIC INFORMATION

Development Plan : Mayor for London - The London Plan Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames -Unitary Development Plan First Alteration

UDP Policies

BE1 Strategic Areas of Special Character and the Protection of Key Views BE3 Development in Conservation Areas H1 Protection of Residential Amenities OL11 Sites of Nature Conservation Importance OL14 Thames Policy Area OL15 Appropriate Riverside Uses OL16 Moorings RES3 Determination of Planning Applications STR6 Conserving and Enhancing the Built Environment STR7 Safeguarding and Enhancing Open Land T20 Compliance with Car and Cycle Parking Standards

Core Strategy Policies

CS 4 River Thames Corridor, Tributaries and the Riverside CS 7 Managing Vehicle Use CS 8 Character, Heritage and Design DM 4 Water Management and Flood Risk DM 6 Biodiversity DM 7 River Thames Corridor, Tributaries and the Riverside DM 9 Managing Vehicle Use for New Development DM10 Design Requirements for New Developments (including House Extensions)

Previous Relevant History

00/03418/FUL Continued mooring of boat measuring Application 22.3m in length for use as ticket and Withdrawn booking office, storage, workshop to 29/05/2002 south of jetty, retention of two meter cabinets, pump cabinets and pipes and provision of ramp for disabled and steps 01/03550/FUL Retention of the Aphrodite ticket office Permit Conditions and associated works including the 04/04/2002 provision of a ramp for disabled access 02/12229/FUL Removal of condition 1 pursuant to Permit 04/12/2002 planning permission 01/03550 which required the planning permission to be personal to Michael J Turk 96/3300/FUL Continued mooring of boat measuring Application 22.3m in length for the use as ticket Withdrawn and booking office, storage, workshop 22/01/1997 to south of jetty; retention of two meter cabinets; pump cabinet and pipes and provision of a ramp for disabled and new steps. 97/3190/FUL Continued mooring of boat measuring Permit Conditions 22.3m in length for use as ticket and 09/09/1997 booking office; storage; workshop to south of jetty; retention of two meter cabinets; pump cabinets and pipes and provision of ramp for disabled and steps 97/3438/FUL Erection of ramp for disabled, steps Permit 5 Year and removal of condition 4 of Condition and permission 97/3190 Conditions 03/11/1998

Consultations

1. Neighbour Notification - 88 surrounding owner/occupiers have been consulted. 12 letter of objection have been received from 7 addresses and the Anglers Residents association. Concerns include: (a) the erection of a corrugated iron shelter is detrimental to the conservation area; (b) two live aboard's will not improve the existing moorings; (c) will cause a further hazard to riverflow resulting in static water which blocks up with debris, with the resulting smell and potential health hazards (d) It is not proven that it is more expensive to live in Kingston upon Thames than Scotland (e) the proposed live aboard accommodation is not attractive and would not enhance the conservation area (f) there will be too many boats on the pontoon (g) the expansion of the business spoils the view of the river bank (h) there is not enough parking capacity in the area (i) increased late night disturbance to the detriment of the neighbouring residents (j) environmental impacts with rubbish collecting around static boats and the subsequent effects on birds and other wildlife (k) the inappropriate and visually intrusive nature of the development alongside Queen's Promenade (l) excessive scale of the new pontoons, inconsistent with the application's claimed purpose of two live-aboard launches for Turks staff (m)encroachment on river space for sailing (n) a number of objectors highlighted that the advertisements to the Turks business and a white shed like building have not had planning permission. Neither of these aspects are considered within this proposal and the advertisements are currently subject to an enforcement notice. 2. London Borough of Richmond upon Thames - No objections raised. However, if RBK is minded to approve, this Council asks that, given the importance of this historic and riverside location alongside a Grade 1 historic park, RB Kingston ensures it maintains control of the type of vessel moored. Whilst an English narrow boat or Dutch Barge would be appropriate other forms of floating structures would not. 3. The Royal Borough of Kingston Chamber of Commerce - support the application which will allow this 300 year old Kingston river business to meet its greater operational needs and allow it to grow in these tough economic time. Turks is a hugely important local business, brining thousands of visitors to the town centre and a vital member of the chamber of commerce. They provide a valuable leisure service to Kingston (which supports the economic and tourism agenda( and should be supported with this application. 4. Borough Valuer - The applicant has a lease which is in the process of being renewed for the existing annexation/mooring. Any additional mooring will be documented in the lease with a widening of the user clause subject to planning permission being granted. The mooring of two A5

residential houseboats will be restricted to staff accommodation only which is ancillary to the main use as a boat yard. In addition, planning permission will also be required to allow the mooring of leisure boats to the proposed new floating pontoons which is not currently permitted under the existing lease and will be documented in a wider user clause subject to planning permission being granted. 5. Kingston Town Conservation Area Advisory Committee - Support. We are pleased to see replacement of houseboat moorings to help compensate for others lost in recent years. 6. Neighbourhood Traffic Engineer - The surrounding area is heavy over prescribed for on street parking and as such, any approved application should be subject to a legal agreement covering: (a) A requirement to preclude residents from applying for on street residents parking permits, visitor parking permits and for permits to park in Council owned car parks in the area; and (b) A requirement to inform potential buyers or tenants of the above exclusion to publicise the lack of parking provision in sales brochures. 7. Environment Agency - no objection to the proposal provided that the Local Planning Authority is satisfied that sufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate the following matters have been resolved: (a) That the development can be classified as 'water compatible development' as defined within Table D.2 of Planning Policy Statement 25 (i.e. Essential ancillary sleeping or residential accommodation for staff required by a use that is also water compatible); (b) The flood hazards to occupants can be adequately avoided through the production and implementation of a site specific flood warning and evacuation plan. As well as provisions for emergency service access in times of flood being considered sufficient. Recommended minimum requirements, as well as key considerations for these plans can be found within paragraphs 7.25 - 7.33 of the practice guide to Planning Policy Statement 25. 8. Flood Hazard Planning Policy Statement 25 identifies that consideration should be given to the access and egress afforded to a development during times of flood. The proposed access and egress route would be south from the pier along Portsmouth Road and then east up Woodbines Avenue. Occupants trying to use this access route during the peak of such flood events may experience depths of floodwater up to approximately 2 metres deep on the Queens Promenade or pier. This would be considered to have a flood hazard rating of 'danger for all' using guidance suggested within paragraph 4.68 of the practice guide to Planning Policy Statement 25. After stepping up to Portsmouth Road maximum flood water levels experienced could be in the region of 0.5 metres deep. Due to the flood hazard identified the Local Planning Authority should be satisfied that sufficient information has been provided by the developer to address the two points for consideration discussed in points A & B above. 9. Flood Warning and Evacuation Plan The Environment Agency does not normally comment on or approve the A6

adequacy of flood emergency response and evacuation procedures accompanying development proposals, as we do not carry out these roles during a flood. Planning Policy Statement 25 and the associated Practice Guide (paragraphs 7.25 to 7.33) places responsibilities on Local Planning Authorities to consult their Emergency Planners with regard to specific emergency planning issues relating to new development. 10. Council Contingency Planning Manager - The flood evacuation plan and the measures suggest are adequate. However, there is one change that needs to be made. The plan references what action will be taken on receiving various Environment agency warning codes. The codes they have used in their plan are now out of date. They will need to update these with the new codes are . Once these amendments have been made and received. the application is acceptable in this regard. 11. Kingston Planning Sub-Committee on 17th May 2011 - RESOLVED that the Development Control Committee be advised that the application is supported with the following comment: The quality of the boats is important to the visual impact. What is not wanted is floating apartments.

Site and Surroundings

12. The application site concerns an existing passenger boat pier on Queens Promenade, known as Town End Pier. The pier is located on the eastern bank of the River Thames and is directly west of The Anglers, High Street, a residential block on the spur where the High Street and South Lane meet. 13. There are a number of boats moored alongside the pier and pontoons, 5 of these are passenger boats, 1 is used for a ticket office and there are two work boats (tug boats). 14. The Aphrodite is a permanently moored vessel which serves as the ticket office for the business and is located alongside the T-shaped pier head. The pontoons are attached to this pier head and extend south down the Thames connected to black steel pilings approximately every 13 metres. The steel pilings are driven approximately 4 metres into the river bed and extend approximately 3 metres above the water level. The pontoons are located approximately 14-16 metres from the river bank. 15. The application site is located within the Kingston Old Town Conservation Area, the Strategic Area of Special Character, an area of nature conservation importance and forms part of the Thames Landscape Strategy. It is located south of the main commercial activity of the town centre and is within the immediate vicinity of residential properties in South Lane, High Street and Portsmouth Road.

Proposal

16. The proposal relates to the extension and repositioning of pontoons and pilings attached to the existing structure at Town End Pier, used by Turks Launches Ltd. It should be noted that in this respect, the application is retrospective as the works were completed towards the end of 2010. The application also seeks permission to sublet moorings to other users and A7

for two permanent residential moorings. 17. Within the Planning Statement submitted as part of the application it has been suggested that the moorings for sub letting would be used on a short term, over night basis

Assessment

The main considerations material to the determination of this application are:

• Principle of Proposed Development • Impact on Character of Area • Impact on Neighbour’s Residential Amenity • Highways and Parking • Trees • Legal Agreements • Sustainability • Other Material Considerations

Principle of Proposed Development

18. The development plan comprises the London Plan (the current approved version of the London Plan was published in February 2008) and the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Adopted Unitary Development Plan First Alteration, August 2005 (UDP). Relevant national guidance includes Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 1 'Delivering Sustainable Development', PPS 7 'Sustainable Development in Rural Areas' and PPS 25 'Development and Flood Risk'. 19. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that 'if regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the Planning Acts, the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.' 20. The most relevant policies in the London Plan in relation to the application are Blue Ribbon Network policies 4C.7 (Passenger and tourism uses on the Blue Ribbon Network), 4C.10 (Increasing Sport and Leisure Use on the Blue Ribbon Network), 4C.12 (Support Facilities and Activities in the Blue Ribbon Network) and 4C.13 (Moorings Facilities on the Blue Ribbon Network). 21. Policies 4C.7 & 4C.10 state that 'the Mayor will and boroughs should protect existing facilities for passenger and tourist traffic on the Blue Ribbon Network'. Policy 4C.12 states that 'The Mayor will, and boroughs, should protect waterway support facilities, infrastructure and activities. New support facilities, infrastructure and activities that support use and enjoyment of the Blue Ribbon Network should be encouraged, especially in areas of deficiency and as part of development in Opportunity Areas. The criteria set out below should be used to assess proposals for the redevelopment of existing facilities.' Additionally, policy 4C.13 states that 'the Mayor will, and boroughs should, protect and improve existing mooring facilities on the Blue Ribbon Network.' A8

22. Policy OL15 (Appropriate Riverside Uses) states that 'WITHIN THE THAMES POLICY AREA, DEVELOPMENT SHOULD NOT ENCROACH INTO THE RIVER. THE PREFERRED USE OF SITES ADJOINING OR SEPARATED FROM THE THAMES ONLY BY A ROAD OR PATH WILL BE:- (a) PUBLIC OPEN SPACE (b) WATER-RELATED RECREATIONAL USES. ALTERNATIVE USE OF SUCH SITES MAY BE ACCEPTABLE WHERE THE PROPOSAL INCORPORATES APPROPRIATE LEVELS OF ASSOCIATED PUBLIC OPEN SPACE AND/OR MAKES ACCESS AVAILABLE FOR WATER-RELATED RECREATIONAL USE. ALTERNATIVE USES INCLUDE:- (i) OTHER LEISURE OR COMMUNITY USES; (ii) RESIDENTIAL; (iii) HOTEL 23. Policy OL16 (Moorings) of the Councils UDP states that 'the Council will seek to control the development of moorings with the co-operation of the environment agency in the following manner: Northern end of Queens Promenade to Eagle Wharf - long stay/short stay moorings. These are defined in the glossary of the UDP as: (a) Short stay: Moorings available for stays of up to 24 hours. (b) Long stay: Moorings available for stays of up to one month. 24. Additionally, policy RL9 (Tourism and Visitors) states that THE COUNCIL WILL SUPPORT PROPOSALS TO PROMOTE TOURISM AND CATER FOR VISITORS TO THE BOROUGH, INCLUDING MEASURES WHICH:- • COMPLEMENT AND BUILD UPON THE ADVANTAGES OF THE HISTORIC TOWN CENTRE OF KINGSTON; • IMPROVE THE QUALITY, SETTING AND ACCESS ARRANGEMENTS (INCLUDING BY PUBLIC TRANSPORT) OF EXISTING TOURIST ATTRACTIONS, IN PARTICULAR AT CHESSINGTON WORLD OF ADVENTURES; AND • EXPLOIT THE OPPORTUNITIES OFFERED BY THE ROYAL BOROUGH'S RIVERSIDE LOCATION AND ITS PROXIMITY TO A NUMBER OF PLACES OF MAJOR HISTORIC INTEREST. SO LONG AS PROPOSALS DO NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT LOCAL AMENITIES AND ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT. 25. Whilst the proposal is in line with the policy thrust from the London Plan, the scheme is not in compliance with the Councils UDP policy OL16. As such, it is noted that the application is not wholly policy compliant in principle. However, permission could be granted for the proposal if there are reasons to either indicate that the policy was out of date or their are other reasons or benefits for the scheme. 26. Given that the proposal is for accommodation that is ancillary to the business needs of Turks Launches, it is considered that the benefit that would be brought to the business should be given significant weight in the application. The planning statement submitted as part of the application sets out the problems that Turks Launches Ltd are/have been experiencing during the current economic climate. These generally relate to the wage in which a skipper or engineer of A9

the pleasure boats would earn compared to house prices in the surrounding area and the subsequent ability to attract appropriate staff. The applicant also sets out how the boats at Turks Launches have been vandalised in the past and the presence of staff around the clock would potentially safeguard the business. The Blue Ribbon Network policies of the London Plan seek to support businesses of this type which attract people and tourism to use the river and town like Kingston along its banks. As such, it is considered that significant weight be afforded to these policies in the determination of this application. 27. Planning Policy Statement 4 (Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth) also states with policy EC10 (Determining planning applications for economic development) that local planning authorities should adopt a positive and constructive approach towards planning applications for economic development. Planning applications that secure sustainable economic growth should be treated favourably. 28. Whilst the application is contrary to UDP policy OL16 (Moorings) as it proposes permanent rather than short or long stay moorings, the benefits of the scheme are considered to outweigh the harm in terms of the principle.

Impact on Character of Area

29. The site is located within the Kingston Old Town Conservation Area and forms part of the Thames Landscape Strategy. 30. The new pontoons are constructed of a galvanised mild steel frame, fibre concrete floats and heavy duty wooden decking forming the walkway. The walkway of the pontoon sits approximately 400mm above the waterline and although there are no sides to the structure, there are a number of power boxes located alongside each piling. 31. The permanent residential moorings would be ancillary to the business use and would be located between the eastern side of the pontoons and the river bank. 32. The applicant has provided photographs of the previous moorings and pontoons prior to their replacement. These pictures demonstrate that the pontoons were of a poor quality and were fashioned out of a number of different materials that were often tied together. The proposed pontoons and pilings are considered to be a significant improvement to the general appearance of the structures which are used by Turks Launches Ltd, and whilst the overall structure may be longer in length than the previous, it is considered that the use of quality materials to create a uniform appearance to the business is in keeping with the character of the river in this location. 33. It is proposed that the two permanent residential boats will be of a Dutch Barge style which are generally low in height compared to the pleasure boats used by Turks. Dutch Barges or narrow boats are a regular feature of rivers and canals and are not considered to be uncommon. Nevertheless, in considering their appropriateness in this location, regard needs to be had to their permanence and the impact that this would have on the character and appearance of the riverside A10

setting. 34. Given the scale of the boats and their 'place' within a riverside setting, it is considered that the presence of these two boats would not have a detrimental impact upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Also, boats are able to be moored to the pontoons all year long, and given the scale of some of the pleasure craft used by Turk Launches, 2 Dutch Barge/Narrow Boats are not considered to harm the conservation area. 35. Given the importance of the setting of this site, it is considered necessary to condition the application in order to ensure that these residential boats are of a design which is appropriate for the area.

Impact on Neighbours’ Residential Amenity

36. The existing entrance to the pier is located approximately 25 metres to the west of The Anglers, High Street. The new pontoons extend south from the pier adjacent to Portsmouth Road. The pontoons extend down to approximately White House and are roughly 50 metres from the nearest front elevation of the residential dwellings in this location. 37. The new pontoons and infrastructure at Turks Launches Ltd are of a scale and a distance away from the nearest residential accommodation as to not have a detrimental impact upon their amenities in terms of loss of outlook, privacy or daylight/sunlight. As such, the main consideration with regards to the impact upon residential amenity relates to the use of the 2 boats are permanent residential accommodation. 38. Concerns have been raised regarding potential noise and general disturbance that two residential boats alongside the moorings would have upon the amenity of residents in accommodation along Portsmouth Road, High Street and South Lane. The two boats would be between 25 - 50 metres from the nearest dwellings and the proposed Dutch Barges/Narrow Boats are not of a size in which large numbers of people could live. It is proposed that the accommodation would be purely for the use of staff of Turks Launched Ltd and would be ancillary to the business. As such, it is considered that the development would not result in a harmful impact upon the amenities of nearby residential accommodation anymore than a new flat/house would have. Highways & Parking

39. The Councils Neighbourhood Traffic Engineer has raised concerns with on-street parking in the surrounding area and has recommended that the proposal be subject to a legal agreement covering the removal of parking permits. It is considered that the application should be subject to a legal agreement covering the removal of parking permits for the residential accommodation and would be a reason for refusal if the applicant were unwilling to enter into such an agreement.

A11

Trees

40. There are no tree or landscape concerns with the application.

Legal Agreements

41. It has been recommended that the proposal be subject to a legal agreement covering the removal of parking permits.

Sustainability

42. There are no issues of sustainability relating to this application.

Other Material Considerations

Flood Risk 43. The Environment Agency have stated that they do not object to the application provided that the Local Planning Authority is satisfied that sufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate the following matters have been resolved: (a) That the development can be classified as 'water compatible development' as defined within Table D2 of Planning Policy Statement 25 (i.e. Essential ancillary sleeping or residential accommodation for staff required by a use that is also water compatible); (b) The flood hazards to occupants can be adequately avoided through the production and implementation of a site specific flood warning and evacuation plan. As well as provisions for emergency service access in times of flood being considered sufficient. Recommended minimum requirements, as well as key considerations for these plans can be found within paragraphs 7.25 - 7.33 of the practice guide to Planning Policy Statement 25. 44. Table D2 of PPS5 states that Water-compatible development includes 'essential ancillary sleeping or residential accommodation for staff required by uses in this category, subject to a specific warning and evacuation plan.' Ancillary accommodation to a business is the only residential ac commotion which is considered acceptable with the functional floodplain. As such, the residential accommodation proposed is acceptable, although it is recommenced that the application is subject to conditions ensuring that the 2 boats are occupied by staff members only. 45. With regards to the warning and evacuation plan, the Councils Contingency Planning Manager has considered the material submitted and has concluded that the details are appropriate, subject to some slight amendments regarding the updating of the warning procedure. At the time of writing this report, these amendments have not been received, however, the applicant had indicated that these will be updated and submitted to the LPA. A12

46. The application also considers the sub-letting of some of the moorings at Turks Launches. On the basis that these moorings would not be used as residential accommodation, these are considered acceptable.

Reason for Approval

47. The proposed pontoons, sub letting of moorings and two ancillary residential moorings, are considered to be of a design, scale and location, that would not have a harmful impact upon the character or appearance of the conservation area or riverside setting, would not result in acceptable harm to the residents in terms of flood risk, and would not be detrimental to residential amenity or local parking conditions. As such, the proposal is considered to be in accordance with policies H1, STR6, BE1, BE3, BE11, BE12, OL14, OL15, OL18, RL9, MW7, T20, RES2 & RES3 of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan, policies CS4, CS7, CS8, CS11, DM7, DM9, DM10, DM11 & DM12 of the Core Strategy (pre-submission version Dec 2010) and policies 4.C7, 4C.10, 4C.12 and 4C.13 of the Mayors London Plan 2004 (as amended).

Recommendation :

Approve subject to the following conditions: 1 The development hereby permitted shall be commenced within 3 years from the date of this decision. Reason: In order to comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990. (As amended)

2 This permission shall be personal to Turks Launches Ltd and shall not enure for the benefit of the land. Reason: To ensure that the residential accommodation remains ancillary to the business in the interests of residential amenity and safety from flooding in accordance with policies H1 (Protection of Residential Amenities) and OL18 (Flooding) of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan First Alteration.

3 The two boats to be used as residential accommodation hereby permitted shall be occupied solely by employees of Turk Launches Ltd for purposes ancillary to the needs of the business and at no times shall be used or as a private unit of accommodation. Reason: The establishment of an additional independent unit of accommodation would give rise to an over-intensive use of the site and lead to an unsatisfactory relationship between independent dwellings in accordance with Policies BE12 (Layout and Amenity of Buildings and Extensions) and H1 (Protection of Residential

A13

Amenities) of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan First Alteration.

4 The proposed sub-letting of moorings, other than the two ancillary residential units, shall not be used as units of residential accommodation and shall not be occupied over night. Reason: The establishment of an additional independent unit of accommodation would give rise to an over-intensive use of the site and lead to an unsatisfactory relationship between independent dwellings and safety from flooding in accordance with Policies BE12 (Layout and Amenity of Buildings and Extensions), H1 (Protection of Residential Amenities) and OL18 (Flooding) of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan First Alteration.

5 The design and appearance of the two boats to be used as ancillary residential accommodation to the business shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the boats being moored on site. The boats shall be moored in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance on completion of the development in accordance with Policies BE3, (Development in Conservation Areas) 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 First Alteration.

6 The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained, in accordance with the timing/phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or within any other period that may be subsequently agreed, in writing, by the local planning authority. This condition must remain in place for the lifetime of the development. Reason: To reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future occupants in accordance with Policy OL18 (Flooding) of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan First Alteration.

7 The boats must remain securely tethered when moored to the rising piles and any other safety measures identified within the flood risk assessment and other planning documents submitted with this application. This condition must remain in place for the lifetime of the development. Reason: To reduce the risk from flooding on future occupants in accordance with Policy OL18 (Flooding) of the Royal Borough of

A14

Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan First Alteration.

Informative(s)

1 This application does not include the advertisements or the large corrugated steel building erected at Turk Launches Ltd.

2 Under the Water Resources Act 1991 and the Land Drainage Byelaws 1981, the prior written consent of the Environment Agency is required for any works in, over, under or within 8 metres landward of a main river, irrespective of any planning permission granted. Please contact Mr Richard Peddie (Development & Flood Risk) for further information: tel. 01276 454 526.

A15

Date of Meeting: 09/06/2011

A2 Register No : 11/12131/FUL

Address : RAILWAY WHARF, DOWN HALL ROAD, KINGSTON UPON THAMES

A16

Ward : Canbury Description of Proposal : Change of use to permanent residential moorings for two boats Plan Type : Full Application Expiry Date : 10/05/2011

Applicant's Plan Nos :

Block Plan Received 01/03/2011 Elevation Photo Received 15/03/2011 Flood Risk (Flood Warning & Received 01/03/2011 Evacution Plan) Floor Plan Received 01/03/2011 Location Plan Received 15/03/2011

BASIC INFORMATION

Development Plan : Mayor for London - The London Plan Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames -Unitary Development Plan First Alteration

London Plan Policies 4C.7 Passenger and tourism uses on the Blue Ribbon Network 4C.10 Increasing sport and leisure use on the Blue Ribbon Network

Draft London Plan Policies

7.25 Increasing the use of the Blue Ribbon Network for Passengers 7.26 Increasing the Blue Ribbon Network for freight transport 7.27 Blue Ribbon Network: supporting infrastructure and recreational use

UDP Policies

BE1 Strategic Areas of Special Character and the Protection of Key Views BE14 Height of Buildings BE17 Signs and Advertisements BE18 Telecommunications Equipment BE19 Areas of Archaeological Significance K9 Design Quailty in the Town Centre OL10a Green Corridors OL13 Footpaths and Bridleways OL14 Thames Policy Area P17c The Barge Dock 17c STR6 Conserving and Enhancing the Built Environment

Core Strategy Policies A17

Previous Relevant History

06/12375/FUL Change of use to temporary Permit Conditions residential moorings for a period of 23/02/2007 1 year for 2 houseboats; installation of waste tank 08/12582/FUL Change of use to permanent Refused 26/03/2009, residential moorings for two boats Appeal Dismissed 06/04/2010 1. Application 06/12375/FUL was approved for the mooring of 2 residential boats in the subject application site for a period of 12 months at the Councils Development Control Committee on the 1 st November 2006 with the decision notice subsequently issued on 23 rd February 2007. The temporary period was to allow the owners sufficient time to find new moorings. 2. Application 08/12582/FUL was for the change of use of the moorings for the same 2 residential boats on a permanent basis. This application was considered by the Councils Development Control Committee on 28 th January 2009, and subsequently refused on the 26 th March 2009 for the following reasons: (a) The proposed change of use to permanent long-stay residential moorings would result in an unacceptable flood risk to the residents of the house boats in conflict with the aims and objectives of Policy K24 (Flood Risk Management) of the K+20 Kingston Town Centre Action Area Plan. (b) The proposed change of use to residential moorings would result in the loss of day moorings to the detriment of river users and in conflict with Policy K13 of the K+20 Area Action Plan and Policies 4C.7 and 4C.10 of the London Plan Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London Consolidated with Alterations since 2004. 3. An appeal was then made to the Planning Inspectorate and a hearing was conducted in March 2010. On the 6th April 2010 an independent inspector dismissed the appeal and upheld both reasons for refusal.

Consultations

4. Neighbour Notification - 67 addresses have been consulted. It should be noted that a number of these addresses are outside of the borough but were notified of the application given their interest in previous proposals

A18

for the site. (a) 17 letters of support were received for the application. 9 of these were from residents of Kingston upon Thames, 8 were from people outside of the borough. Reasons for support: (i) Incorrect information from the EA (ii) The Houseboats are a positive addition to the character of the area (iii) The wharf should be protected for residential use (iv) The Houseboats provide security to the riverside (v) The flood risk elements are over exaggerated and the current occupiers have the skills to deal with such an event. (b) A number of other comments were made to support the application, however, these were not considered to be planning related. (c) 3 letters of objection have been received. Concerns raised include: (i) The boats have been illegally moored for over 4 years (ii) The previous reasons for refusal upheld by the Planning Inspectorate still remain valid (d) A number of other comments were made regarding the lack of enforcement action from the Council to move the Houseboats. This is a separate matter to the consideration of this application.

Environment Agency 5. The EA provided detailed advice and guidance on proposals for this site on the previous planning applications, references 06/12375/FUL and 08/12582/FUL. When the latter planning application was refused in 2009 the EA supported the Council with technical evidence at the subsequent planning appeal hearing in 2010. 6. The Planning Inspectorate dismissed the appeal and the conclusion of the Inspector in the appeal decision issued in April 2010 was: (a) "I have found the development undermines riverside recreation and leisure activities in the area, and that it places people at undue risk of flooding… I am satisfied that those legitimate aims and considerations can only be adequately safeguarded and addressed by refusal of permission… I conclude the appeal should not succeed". Appeal Decision APP/Z5630/A/09/21111639. 7. The technical information has not significantly changed and the advice therefore remains the same as the previous consultations. The key issues of concern remain as loss of public leisure moorings and flood risk management. Flood risk 8. There is some new information on flood risk to the site and there are also comments to make on the flood risk information submitted with the planning application. However, this does not alter the EA’s previous advice. 9. It is the EA's view that the evidence highlights there would be significant flood risk impacts which the LPA would need to accept if planning permission is granted. It is advised that, in determining whether to grant A19

this planning permission, you consider whether the consequences of the flood risk can be safely managed. Loss of visitor moorings 10. The current planning application does not address this issue and the council's policy K13 of the K+20 Area Action Plan is still applicable. The EA remain concerned about the loss of 24 hour leisure moorings and use of the public wharf. 11. In February 2011 new flood maps were published for the River Thames between Sunbury and Teddington. This was based on a recently completed study called 'The Thames between Sunbury and Teddington Flood Modelling Study'. Throughout 2009 and 2010 the EA carried out flood risk modelling projects on the River Thames to produce improved flood risk data to update the Flood Map, to improve the National Flood Risk Assessment, and to provide more accurate data for making planning decisions. 12. The changes show a reduction in flood water for the 20% annual probability flood event of 0.62m, a slight increase in level for the 1% flood event of 0.02m and a 0.09m increase for the 1% with climate change flood event. So in summary, for the lower order floods there is a significant reduction in flood depth but little change for the 1% or 1% with climate change events. The 1% with climate change event is the design event for access and egress from a new development, which ensures that a precautionary approach is adopted to cover the development for its lifetime. 13. The following reports were submitted in support of the application: (a) Flood Warning and Evacuation Plan and Interim version of "25 years of flow at the Kingston Gauge (1984-2009) and the head and tail water readings at Teddington Lock (March 1947), a layman's analysis" by Basil Rickard dated 28 February 2011. (b) Flood Warning and Evacuation Plan 14. The EA have assessed these and have the following comments: (a) The 1% and 1% with climate change flood events have not been assessed. The applicant has instead chosen to assess lesser flood events of 20%, 5% and approx 2%. (b) The applicant's analysis of the 1947 flood event and re-running an equivalent event today is not relevant because the 1947 event does not have the same flows to recreate the 1% or 1% with climate change flood. (c) The safe access away from the site in a flood event was one of the key issues we have raised previously. The EA appeal statement from the 2010 appeal and the Planning Inspector's decision notice have more information on this. The flood levels for the 1% and 1% with climate change are slightly higher so the comments given in the earlier statement and by the Inspector still stand. (d) The applicant refers to the Surrey Comet article (not attached) stating that basements had minimal flooding on 26 March 1947. However, this article is not consistent with all the evidence held by the Environment Agency that show the Thames did flood extensively during this event. (e) The applicant correctly states our aim to give a 2 hour notice of A20

flooding. (f) The 2007 flood was not a significant fluvial event so whether the boat occupants were able to respond at this time is not relevant. (g) The reason why the river has not overtopped in 4 years and 9 months is because there has not been a significant flood event that would cause Thames flooding. 15. Borough Valuer – Comments were received from the Councils Borough Valuer on application 08/12582/FUL stating that they would not want to see permanent moorings established in this location. These comments remain unchanged.

16. Kingston Planning Sub-Committee - RESOLVED on 17 th May 2011, that the Development Control Committee be advised that the application is supported with the following comments: 1. there are seemingly contradictory points raised, including: allowing for boaters wanting to park cars but the Traffic Engineers recommending no parking permits and the balance of anti-social behaviour but at the same time encouraging boat day visitors to the Town Centre. Development Control needs to take a clear decision whether to enforce against this development or, after four years of their inhabiting the space, allow them to stay; 2. the area in question does not appear to be the safest place to moor a small boat. The present houseboats have saved a life and their presence is not unwelcome. They have behaved responsibly. 3. The Environment Agency’s (EA) flood risk seems highly over- exaggerated. The Council should investigate what liability it has if it chooses not to follow the EA’s advice. A legal position needs to be clarified prior to a decision being made. Kingston Town Planning Sub- Committee also advises the EA to attend the Development Control Committee and put their case forward

Site and Surroundings

17. The application site concerns two moorings located to the north of and adjacent to Kingston Railway Bridge and the riverside car park off Down Hall Road. The moorings are designated as short-stay temporary moorings for the use of visitors to Kingston who arrive by boat and lie within Riverside North Conservation Area.

Proposal

18. The proposal relates to the permanent residential moorings for two boats.

Assessment

The main considerations material to the determination of this application are:

• Principle of Proposed Development • Impact on Character of Area • Impact on Neighbour’s Residential Amenity A21

• Highways and Parking • Trees • Legal Agreements • Sustainability • Other Material Considerations

Background

19. This proposal was considered by this Committee in 2009 and permission was refused. This decision was examined by an independent inspector who upheld both of the Council’s reasons for refusal. Given this the key consideration is whether there has been a material change in circumstances from when the proposal last considered i.e. whether: (a) There has been a change to the in principle objection to the proposed use in terms of the impact on riverside recreation and leisure activities in terms of the policies in the Development Plan; and (b) Evidence is submitted to demonstrate that the application would no longer result in an unacceptable flood risk to the residents of the houseboats.

Principle of Proposed Development

20. The background to this proposal is that these moorings are part of a wharf which is an established navigational facility for casual 24-hour public moorings. It is a historical public wharf with public access; the part to the north of the railway bridge is owned by the Council and that riverside to the south of the bridge is owned by the Environment Agency and the whole of the wharf is recognised in the Environment Agency's publication, "A User's Guide to the River Thames". Following a requirement of the owners of three houseboats to vacate their previous commercial mooring at Surbiton and to assist their onward movement to an approved permanent location, the Council as landowner agreed that as a temporary measure they could be moored from May 2006 to November 2006 during which time the owners could identify a new permanent location and this was agreed to by the Environment Agency. It can therefore be appreciated that these moorings have now been used for 4 years more than was originally agreed to by the Agency and the Council as landowners. 21. The Councils Core Strategy states that it will continue to protect and enhance the special character and environment of the River Thames and its tributaries and will promote and enhance the use of the river and the riverside by: (a) Improving infrastructure and facilities for boat users that provide access to the river and the foreshore, such as piers, jetties, wharfs, moorings, slipways, steps and stairs (b) Encouraging and supporting new facilities for river-buses and a river-bus services (c) Supporting opportunities to improve riverside walk to, and develop links from, Hogsmill River and Thames River Corridor A22

to other Green Networks in and out of the Borough (d) Improving river-based and riverside recreation and leisure activities and attractions (e) Protecting and enhancing the Thames River Corridor and its Tributaries as a valuable resource for biodiversity and wildlife (wildlife corridor) and as a valuable part of the Blue Ribbon Network.

22. Additionally, Policy DM7 proposals for riverside development and improved facilities will need to demonstrate that there will be no unacceptable impact upon navigation, biodiversity and flood risk. Development proposals on the riverside should preserve or enhance the waterside character, heritage value and setting and provide physical and visual links with the surrounding areas (including views along the river).

23. The application site falls within Character Area 10 (North Kingston) of the K+20 although it does border Character Area 5 (Riverside North) also. The main objectives of these character areas, relevant to this application are below: (a) Character Area 10 (North Kingston) (i) Complete the regeneration of the area with high quality mixed use development, including residential, education, GP healthcare facility, offices, a hotel and community uses on Proposal Sites P17 - 20 (ii) Linked public realm, riverside, gateway, pedestrian and cycle route improvements, including Skerne Road (b) Character Area 5 (Riverside North) (i) High quality mixed use development (ii) Riverside enhancements to moorings and the riverside walk and a new riverside public space on Site P12 (K10 and K13) (iii) To secure public access to the John Lewis undercroft to view the old bridge remains and re-use of the vacant riverside restaurant unit (iv) To improve access to the riverside and provide active frontages (K9) (v) Maintain and enhance public parking (K20)

24. To support the objectives of the Character Areas, the site is identified in the K+20 Kingston Town Centre Area Action Plan Riverside Strategy (Policy K13) as providing Day Moorings in accordance with a supporting Kingston-upon Thames Mooring Business Plan Scoping Study in which it the advantages of such a designation are supported by the following text: "Given the site's proximity to the town centre, food stores and Canbury Gardens, plus the constraints of noise and a wharf designation, this site lends itself to visitor moorings. It also combines well with the existing

A23

Environment Agency visitor moorings (on the wharf frontage upstream of the railway bridge and Thames side Wharf site). Boaters value being able to get their cars next to their boats before a trip for loading supplies and boarding people with mobility problems. "The Scoping Study also notes under “Sensitivities” the advice to boaters not to moor during storm water conditions. 25. Also, because it is a comparatively isolated site with some anti-social behaviour out of hours, the moorings study recommends the site for daytime mooring only. 26. There is London Plan support for maintaining the availability of Canbury Wharf (the correct name for this wharf) for short stay moorings as part of the Blue Ribbon Network. Policy 4C.7 seeks to protect existing facilities for tourist use, and Policy 4C.10 seeks to protect moorings used for leisure activity. In this regard it is to be noted that Canbury Wharf is the first mooring opportunity on the non-tidal Thames for boaters heading upstream from London, and is therefore of strategic importance and a good location for day-time trippers, while the facility is in good order (albeit rather basic), it has car parking and is close to the shops and services in the town centre. 27. The Draft London Plan reiterates support for retaining such short stay moorings. Policy 7.25 states that development proposals should protect existing facilities for waterbourne passenger and tourist traffic. Applications which remove existing facilities should be refused unless suitable replacement facilities are provided. Additionally, Policies 7.26 and 7.27 seek to retain moorings that can be used for freight traffic and/or water sports and leisure uses. 28. The K+20 forms part of the Councils adopted Development Plan and is up to date and should therefore be given significant weight in determining the application. 29. Given that the development plan has not changed since the Inspectors decision in 2010, it is considered that, the proposal would be contrary to the Core Strategy, K+20 and London Plan. In assessing the application against the Development Plan, the appeal Inspector concluded that ‘the change of use of approximately half of the available public mooring space at Railway Wharf to permanent residential mooring would, as a matter of fact, reduce the amount of visitor mooring available for passenger, tourist and leisure traffic on this reach of the Thames, which would be contrary to the thrust of the relevant development plan policies. The loss of the day moorings:

(a) would not protect existing facilities for passenger and tourist traffic and would result in a private development on the river contrary to London Plan policies; (b) would not encourage greater use of the river and riverside and seek improvements to river-based and riverside recreation and leisure activities and attractions; or encourage links to the riverside from the rest of the centre including from Kingston Station and bus stops contrary to the K+20 Town Centre Area

A24

Action Plan and the Core Strategy. Additionally, the Councils Mooring Plan also sets out a rationale as to why this location is not suitable for permanent residential moorings.

30. It is therefore noted that there is a fundamental policy objection to the principle of the proposal. This has not changed since the consideration of the 2008 application and as such, the inspectors comments ‘I have found no material planning considerations in this case sufficient to lead me to the view that the up to date policies in the AAP should be set aside in this case,’ remain pertinent.

Flood Risk

31. The application site is located within Flood Zone 3b (functional floodplain). National planning guidance in relation to flooding is provided by PPS25 (December 2006) and the associated Practice Guide (December 2009). PPS25 requires that in determining planning applications for development in flood risk areas, regard must be had to the policies contained therein as a material consideration. Below are two tables set out in PPS25. Table D2 sets out what development is considered to be water compatible. Residential accommodation is not considered water compatible unless ancillary to a business. Table D3 demonstrates that only water compatible development is acceptable within flood zone 3b ‘functional flood plain’.

PPS25 - Table D2

PPS25 - Table D3

A25

32. The Environment Agency (EA) has provided comments on the application that relate to the flood risk and safety considerations associated with the application. 33. The information submitted by the applicant has been assessed by the Environment Agency who do not consider the details to warrant a change in advice from the previous application. 34. The EA published new flood maps for the River Thames between Sunbury and Teddington in February 2011. Their detailed comments are set out in the consultation section of this report where they recommend that the application be refused. 35. Policy K24 of the K+20 AAP states that within Flood Zone 3b, functional floodplain, only water compatible uses and essential infrastructure (PPS25 Table D3) will be permitted, unless the site specific recommendations in the SFRA state otherwise. Given the Environment Agency advice, it is considered that the permanent residential moorings in this location would result in an unacceptable risk upon the residents of the boats. As such, the proposal is considered to be contrary to PPS25 and the Councils K+20 Policy K24. 36. Having regard to the Inspector’s report, it is stated that ‘whilst there are other residential moorings within the same stretch of the river as the appeal site, that is a matter of history. The appeal before me relates to new development (a material change of use comprising development for the purposes of the planning regime) and falls to be considered in the light of current policy and guidance. Having regard to the advice in PPS25, I am satisfied that residential moorings do not fall within the category of water compatible development described by Table D.2.’ 37. Overall, taking account of PPS25, policy K24 (K +20) and the Inspector’s report, the proposal is clearly contrary to these considerations and would result in an unacceptable flood risk to the residents of the house boats.

A26

Impact on Character of Area

38. The application site is located within the Riverside North conservation area and the Thames Side Strategic Area of Special Character. 39. The site is adjacent to the Hampton Wick Conservation Area on the western side of the River Thames in the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames. 40. Given that no issues relating to the impact that the boats have upon the character or appearance of the area have been in the past, they are considered acceptable in this respect. This sentiment was agreed by the Planning Inspectorate where it is stated in paragraph 5 of the decision notice that 'it was no part of the Council's case that the residential moorings cause harm to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, and I have no reason to disagree.' 41. Nevertheless, it is pertinent to acknowledge that this area of Kingston upon Thames is currently undergoing much change with large mixed use developments being built at 4 Waters Lane (Turks Boatyard) and the Power Station.

Impact on Neighbours’ Residential Amenity

42. The nearest residential accommodation is Osiers Court, approximately 45 metres to the south east. 43. No issues relating to the impact that the boats have upon residential amenity have been in the past and as such, the application is considered acceptable in this respect.

Highways & Parking

44. The Councils Neighbourhood Traffic Engineer has raised concerns with on-street parking in the surrounding area and has recommended that the proposal be subject to a legal agreement covering the removal of parking permits. However, given that the Houseboats have been in this location for a number of years and no highway or parking concerns have been raised, it is considered to be unreasonable to implement this situation. As such, no highway or parking concerns are raised for this application.

Trees

45. There are no tree or landscape concerns with the application.

Legal Agreements

46. There is no legal agreement associated with this application.

Sustainability

47. There are no issues of sustainability relating to this application.

A27

Recommendation :

Refuse for the following reason(s): 1 The proposed change of use to permanent long-stay residential moorings would result in an unacceptable flood risk to the residents of the house boats in conflict with the aims and objectives of Policy K24 (Flood Risk Management) of the K+20 Kingston Town Centre Action Area Plan, Policy DM7 (River Thames Corridor, Tributaries and the Riverside) of the Core Strategy (per-submission version Dec 2010) and Planning Policy Statement 25 (Development and Flood Risk). 2 The proposed change of use to residential moorings would result in the loss of day and freight moorings to the detriment of river users and in conflict with Policy K13 of the K+20 Area Action Plan, Policies CS4 (River Thames Corridor, Tributaries and the Riverside) and DM7 (River Thames Corridor, Tributaries and the Riverside) of the Core Strategy (per-submission version Dec 2010), Policies 4C.7 and 4C.10 of the London Plan Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London Consolidated with Alterations since 2004, and Policies 7.25 (Increasing the use of the Blue Ribbon Network for Passengers), 7.26 (Increasing the Blue Ribbon Network for freight transport) and 7.27 (Blue Ribbon Network: supporting infrastructure and recreational use) of the Draft Replacement London Plan.

A28

Development Control Committee

Date of Meeting: 09/06/2011

A3 Register No : 11/16067/FUL

Address : ST ANDREWS AND ST MARKS PRIMARY SCHOOL, MAPLE ROAD, SURBITON, KT6 4AL

A29

Ward : St Marks Description of Proposal : Erection of 2no. single storey modular classrooms with covered walkway Plan Type : Full Application Expiry Date : 07/04/2011

Applicant's Plan Nos :

02 Rev A Proposed Site Plan Receiv 26/04/2011 ed AQ022-100-01 Loadcell Receiv 09/02/2011 ed AQ022-200-02 Proposed Floor Plan Receiv 09/02/2011 ed AQ022-300-01-A Proposed Elevations Receiv 17/02/2011 ed AQ022-350-01-A 3D Plan Receiv 17/02/2011 ed Design & Access Statement Receiv 09/02/2011 ed Location Plan Receiv 09/02/2011 ed

BASIC INFORMATION

Development Plan : Mayor for London - The London Plan Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames -Unitary Development Plan First Alteration

UDP Policies

BE11 Design of New Buildings and Extensions BE12 Layout and Amenity of Buildings and Extensions BE3 Development in Conservation Areas BE9 Trees and Soft Landscaping CS1 New Community Facilities and the Extension of Existing Community Facilities H1 Protection of Residential Amenities RES3 Determination of Planning Applications STR6 Conserving and Enhancing the Built Environment T20 Compliance with Car and Cycle Parking Standards

Core Strategy Policies CS6 Sustainable Travel

A30

CS7 Managing Vehicle Use CS8 Character, Heritage and Design CS16 Community Facilities DM8 Sustainable Transport for new Development

DM9 Managing vehicle use for new development DM10 Design requirements for new Developments DM12 Development in Conservation Areas and Affecting Heritage Assets DM23 Schools DM24 Protection and Provision of Community Facilities

Previous Relevant History

01/07294/TPO Surgery work to Lime and Grant Consent Sycamores (Surgery Work) 31/10/2001 05/16383/FUL Erection of 2 x cycle storage Permit 5 Year shelters Condition 21/09/2005 91/0383/FUL Erection of single storey front Permit 5 Year extension Condition and Conditions 26/04/1991 94/0005/FUL Erection of portable classroom and Permit Conditions relocation of shed 16/05/1994 96/7071/TPO Surgery work to Copper Beech, Grant Consent Sycamore and 3 Lime trees (Surgery Work) 29/04/1996 98/7369/TPO Felling of Lombardy Poplars Grant Consent (Felling) 13/01/1999 99/07136/FUL Renewal of Permission 94/0005, for Permit Conditions the retention of portable classroom 21/07/1999 and retention of shed. 19321 Extension at lst floor level Permit 22/03/1978

Consultations

1. Neighbour notification letters have been sent, no replies have been received. 2. Surbiton Planning Sub-Committee considered the application on 18 May 2011 and resolved that the Development Control Committee be advised the application is supported.. 3. Borough Valuer - no observations. A31

4. Director of Education : No response received. 5. Neighbourhood Traffic Engineer -Increase in pupil numbers by 30 and therefore trips should be managed through a revised school travel plan to be updated on an annual basis for the next 3 years. This is to assess the impact of the school on the surrounding road network. 6. Tree & Landscape Officer – raises the following concerns:. (i)The application would appear to involve the use of tarmac within the root protection zone of adjacent trees. If a hard surface is proposed the application should use granular material below a permeable and gas- porus finished surface (wearing course) as per BS5837:2005 Trees in relation to Construction. (ii)If consent is to be granted conditions should include:- (iii) Survey information to accurately show canopy spread and root protection zones for all trees that may be affected, both by the proposal and by the construction process, including access and location of any temporary site buildings or other construction arising from the application. (iv) An arboricultural method statement to include detail of pruning work to retained trees, pre-commencement tree protection and a method statement should be provided to explain how construction will be carried out to avoid damage to root systems, as set out in BS5837:2005 (v) A landscaping scheme to include replacement planting for the loss of the Purple Beech and Poplars.

Site and Surroundings

7. The application site is on the east side of Maple Road, a site which is enclosed on 3 sides. Maple Infants School lies directly to the south. To the north, beyond a wall approx. 2m high, lies empty land with planning permission for housing with a car-park to the rear, as well as the existing house no.98 Maple Road. To the west, 10m distant, is a 6-storey block of flats Crescent Court. The school grounds are largely hard surfaced with a limited amount of green space, on part of which the proposed classrooms would be built, and some mature trees. The buildings on site are not listed, however, the eastern boundary of the site adjoins the Claremont Road Conservation Area. Immediately to the west of the site is a 2m high cycle parking structure..

Proposal

8. This is an application for the erection of a pair of single storey prefabricated modular classrooms with integral toilets and Learning Bay. The building would measure18.2m by 9.8m with an overall flat roof height of approximately 3.7m, together with a covered walkway canopy on a tarmac footpath linking the new classrooms to the main school building. The building would be positioned on the soft, green area, towards the north boundary of the site. The classrooms would be finished in plastisol coated steel wall and roof panels with aluminium windows and fire-exit doors. The entrance door would be timber and glazed. 9. The new classrooms will provide space for up to 60 children and the applicant has confirmed that the net increase in pupil numbers on this site will be 30 pupils. 10. The proposal is part of a wider Borough and Greater London programme A32

to provide temporary classrooms on a number of school sites to address a shortfall in accommodation to meet the "bulge" in the school intake figures for September 2011. 11. A similar "bulge" programme was undertaken in Kingston in 2008 and 2009, resulting in the erection of 7 temporary classrooms (creating 210 additional reception places in 2008), and 9 new classrooms in 2009 (creating an additional 300 places).

Assessment

The main considerations material to the determination of this application are:

Principle of Proposed Development

12. The application involves the erection of 2 classrooms in order to meet an identified shortfall in children's placements in Kingston for 2011. The classroom is to be located on a soft, green area in the school grounds. 13. The proposed classrooms are associated with an existing school, which is located in an urban area of the borough. 14. Policy CS1 (New Community Facilities and the Extension of Existing Community Facilities) confirms that the Council will normally permit proposals for extensions to existing community facilities (such as a school), where required for operational purposes but requires consideration to be given to conditions of public transport, traffic, residential amenities and the local environment. 15. There is no Development Plan objection to the principle of the proposed development.

Impact on Character of Area

16. The building is basically 2 rectangular shaped boxes joined together and clad in composite steel panels coated in plastic. It would be built close to an existing modular building which would moderate its visual affect on its environs. 17. The character of the site is open , green and with significant, mature trees to the south, and the wider area is characterised by buildings with high quality architectural design and detailing. The plastic finish of the proposed building is considered to have an adverse impact on that character. An alternative cladding material for the walls, such as timber boarding, would relieve this adverse impact, and could be applied by condition. This would soften the impact of the plain, box form and blend

A33

the box more into the background of trees and grass, thereby reducing its impact on the character of the site and the wider area. 18. Given the temporary appearance and short designed-life of the building it would also be necessary to attach a time limited condition to assess the visual and physical nature of the building in the future and its continuing contribution to the environment from a sustainability perspective. The proposal as adjusted, would therefore comply with policies BE3, BE11 and STR6 of the Kingston UDP.

Impact on Neighbours’ Residential Amenity

19. The new classrooms would be visible from the back of the houses on Maple Road, north of the site. They would be sited adjacent to the north boundary of the site, next to the side garden wall of 100 Maple Road and to the rear of the back garden of no.98 Maple Road. The closest distance to no.98 Maple Road would be 18m. The classrooms would rise above the wall of the boundary to the north by approx.1.5m. However, given the distance from no.98, and the consented scheme behind the boundary wall being car-parking with approximately.15m distance to the nearest consented building, It is considered that no significant concerns of outlook, loss of privacy, or loss of daylight/sunlight from the erection of the classrooms for these neighbouring properties would arise. 20. The development will result in up to 30 additional pupils attending the school. It is not considered that the increase in pupil numbers would give rise to a level of noise and disturbance materially above what currently occurs at the school to be considered detrimental to neighbouring amenity. It is not considered that there would be a significant increase in the use of vehicles taking children to and from school to result in nuisance and disturbance to local residents. 21. In light of the above, the proposal would have a negligible impact on the amenities of surrounding residents and complies with policies H1 and BE12.

Highways & Parking

22. No alterations or changes are proposed to the existing access or parking arrangements on site. 23. The Council's Neighbourhood Traffic Engineer raises no objection, but recommends a travel plan is submitted as part of any consent includes: secure, covered parking for scooters. A condition is therefore recommended to be imposed on any permission granted seeking the submission of a School Travel Plan, which takes into account the envisaged change of circumstance resulting from the increase in pupils at the school (i.e. parking attraction and vehicular movements) in accordance with policies T1 & STR13 of the UDP.

Trees

24. The proposed building would occupy 178 square metres of existing soft A34

landscape as well as the creation of a new footpath and covered walkway. Comments from the Council's Tree & Landscape Officer suggest that a full-landscaping scheme would not be appropriate in this instance. A condition requiring protection of existing trees on site during construction should be applied to any forthcoming consent. The proposal therefore complies with Policy BE9 of the Kingston UDP.

Legal Agreements

25. No legal agreements accompany the application.

Sustainability

26. As a temporary building the possibilities and expectations for sustainability in the proposal are limited; however the building would meet the requirements of Building Regulations in this matter with the use of high efficiency lighting and fittings, low maintenance building materials with high levels of insulation.

Other Material Considerations

27. The proposed building is expected to meet DDA requirements as per part M of Building Regulations.

Reason for Approval

28. The proposal would not detract from the character and appearance of the area and no material harm would be caused to the residential amenities of neighbouring properties nor the conservation area in general. The proposal therefore complies with policies BE3, BE11, BE12, CS1, H1, T1, T20, STR6 of the Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames Unitary Development Plan (First Alteration) and policies CS15, DM10, DM12 and DM23 of the Core Strategy (pre-submission version December 2010).

Recommendation :

2 This permission shall be for a limited period only, expiring on 9th June 2018. On or before that date the subject building hereby permitted shall be

A35

permanently removed and its use discontinued and the land shall be reinstated to its former condition prior to the placement of the building. Reason: To enable the local planning authority to review the suitability of the development in the light of circumstances prevailing at the end of the above period and in the interests of the amenities and character of the area.

3 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 First Alteration.

4 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) Measures for the laying of dust, suppression of noise and abatement of other nuisance arising from development works. (e) Location of all ancillary site buildings. (f) Measures to protect any tree, shrubbery and other landscape features to be retained on the site during the course of development. (g) Means of enclosure of the site.

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

5 Before the first occupation of the building 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 A36

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

6 No demolition, site clearance or building operations shall be commenced until tree protection to the standards set out in BS5837: 2005 "Protection of Trees on Construction Sites" (figures 4 and 5) has been erected around the trees shown on the approved drawings as being retained on the site. The fencing is to be not less than 1.5 metres in height and 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: 2005, or alternatively (c) such an area as may have previously been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such tree protection 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 protected. Within the protected area: (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 protected area of 6.00 metres. Reason: To prevent 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 First Alteration.

7 Prior to commencement of the development, a detailed arboricultural method statement and tree protection plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. This

A37

submission shall include: (a) A plan to a scale and level of accuracy appropriate to the proposal, that shows the positions, crown spreads and root protection areas (RPA) of every retained tree on site, and on nearby ground or land adjacent to the site, in relation to the approved plans. (b) A schedule of pre-construction tree works for the above-detailed trees, where appropriate. (c) Details and positions of the tree root protection zones. (d) Details and positions of tree protection barriers and ground protection where appropriate. (e) Details and positions of the construction exclusion zones. (f) Details and positions of the existing and proposed underground service runs, to be routed to avoid root protection zones where possible. (g) Details and positions of any change in levels or the positions of any excavations within 5m of the root protection area of retained trees. (h) Details of any special engineering required to accommodate the protection of retained trees (e.g. in connection with foundations, service installation, bridging water features, surfacing). (i) Details of the working methods to be employed for the installation of drives, paths within the RPA’s of retained trees in accordance with the principles of ‘No Dig’ construction. The details shall be in accordance with British Standard BS: 5837: 2005 sections 9.3, 9.2, 9, 11.7, 5.2.2 and 10 for requirements (c) to (h) inclusive. The approved protection scheme shall be implemented prior to commencement of any work on site and maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority until the completion of the development. Reason: In the interests of visual amenities and so 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 First Alteration.

8 An updated School Travel Plan shall be implemented in accordance with details to be submitted to, and approved by, the Local Planning Authority at least 3 months prior to the development being brought into use, and thereafter maintained and updated for the succeeding 3 years. The Travel Plan shall take into account the transport impact of the additional class and shall contain a package of measures for addressing this by minimising the number of vehicle trips to the site by staff, pupils and visitors. The travel plan

A38

shall contain an action plan with timescales for the implementation of the proposed measures, details of an ongoing programme of monitoring and review and targets for reductions in car use. Monitoring and review shall include the submission of an annual travel plan update report for the approval of the Local Planning Authority, containing the results of annually repeated staff and pupil travel surveys and demonstrates progress towards meeting targets. The travel plan will also include the following measures: Secure, sheltered cycle parking and secure, sheltered kiddie- scooter parking Reason: To ensure that sustainable transport methods are encouraged and implemented in accordance with Policy STR16 (Developing and Promoting Sustainable Transport Modes) and Policy T20 (compliance with Car and Cycle Parking Standards) of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan Proposed First Alteration.

9 This grant of planning permission shall enure only for the benefit of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames. Reason: In order to comply with Regulation 9 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992.

Informative(s)

1 Please note that the plastisol coated steel wall cladding submitted as part of the application were considered inappropriate to the character and appearance of the area and the setting of the adjacent conservation area and that a timber cladding was considered as an acceptable alternative, to be submitted under condition 2 of this approval.

2 Your attention is drawn to the need to comply with the relevant provisions of the Building Regulations, the Building Acts and other related legislation. These cover such works as - the demolition of existing buildings, the erection of a new building or structure, the extension or alteration to a building, change of use of buildings, installation of services, underpinning works, and fire safety/means of escape works. Notice of intention to demolish existing buildings must be given to the Council’s Building Control Service at least 6 weeks before work starts. A completed application form together with detailed plans must be submitted for approval before any building work is commenced. For further information and advice, contact – The Service Director (Planning and Transportation) (Building Control), Directorate of Environmental Services, Guildhall 11, Kingston upon Thames, on 020 8547 4699.

A39

4 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

A40

Development Control Committee

Date of Meeting: 09/06/2011

A4 Register No : 11/16097/FUL

Address : TOLWORTH JUNIOR SCHOOL, SCHOOL LANE, SURBITON, KT6 7SA

A41

Ward : Surbiton Hill Description of Proposal : Erection of an open-sided lean-to on part of the north elevation of Tolworth Junior School Plan Type : Full Application Expiry Date : 28/04/2011

Applicant's Plan Nos :

Design & Access Statement Received 03/03/2011 KXS10056 01 Proposed Received 17/02/2011 covered walkway KXS10056 02 Block Plan Received 03/03/2011 KXS10056 02 Site location plan Received 17/02/2011

BASIC INFORMATION

Development Plan : Mayor for London - The London Plan Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames -Unitary Development Plan First Alteration

UDP Policies

BE11 Design of New Buildings and Extensions BE12 Layout and Amenity of Buildings and Extensions H1 Protection of Residential Amenities OL6 Protection of Other Open Land OL7 Open Space Improvement and Ancillary Development RES3 Determination of Planning Applications STR6 Conserving and Enhancing the Built Environment STR7 Safeguarding and Enhancing Open Land

Core Strategy Policies CS8 Character, Heritage and Design CS16 Community Facilities DM10 Design requirements for new Developments DM23 Schools DM24 Protection and Provision of Community Facilities

Previous Relevant History

02/08007/FUL Provision of new entrance gate, Permit 5 Year fence and path from School Lane Condition and adjacent to games court Conditions

A42

21/03/2002 04/16011/FUL Demolition of existing classrooms Permit 5 Year and fibreglass pool and erection of Condition and sports hall Conditions 26/05/2004 04/16019/FUL Erection of single storey extension Permit 5 Year on the north west elevation to Condition and house new learning area, staff Conditions facilities and new entrance to 11/03/2004 school 04/16595/FUL Demolition of existing classrooms Permit 5 Year and fibreglass pool and erection of Condition and sports hall Conditions 03/12/2004 05/16023/FUL Erection of external fire escape Permit 5 Year staircase Condition 05/04/2005 06/16260/FUL Replacement of existing covered Permit with expiry play space with single storey condition + condition extension and erection of canopy 03/07/2006 to allow the formation of new covered play space adjacent to playing field 06/16578/FUL Erection of single storey extension Permit with expiry to Tolworth Infants School condition + condition 05/01/2007 07/16101/FUL Installation of outdoor covered Permit 24/04/2007 cycle parking area 08/16038/FUL Erection of single storey front Permit with expiry extension to Tolworth Junior condition + condition School 17/03/2008 09/16048/FUL Erection of a temporary single Permit with storey modular classroom conditions 02/06/2009 09/16224/COND Details required by Condition 2 Approve 04/08/2009 (Travel Plan) of planning permission 09/16048/FUL 10/16583/FUL Erection of a timber bespoke Permit with gazebo conditions 09/03/2011 5094 Change of use from statutory No objection. allotments to school purposes Consent 16/08/1962

Consultations

1. Neighbour notifications: 112 neighbours were notified: No objections A43

received. 2. The Surbiton Planning Sub-Committee resolved that the Development Control Committee be advised the application is supported. 3. Director of Education and Leisure : No response.

Site and Surroundings

4. Tolworth Infants and Junior School occupies a site area of 1.94 hectares located at the western end of School Lane, Surbiton. The site contains a number of buildings of various ages and size, which are located predominately to the north of the site. The part of the site the subject of this application is towards the north boundary of the school grounds, which adjoins the back gardens of houses in Egmont Avenue and Egmont Road. The area of the proposal is a hard surfaced area infront of classrooms next to the north boundary. The north boundary, opposite the proposed structure is a brick wall 1.5m high for 95% of the area (dropping to 1.35m high at one end) all with 1.3m of chain-link fence above. Some planting runs along this fence. Opposite no.17 Egmont Road for 6m length of the classrooms there is a timber pagoda structue, 2m deep, attached to the school, with a secondary structure closer to the boundary wall. Existing pupil numbers at the school are 615. The school is surrounded by residential properties on all four sides. The site is not located with a conservation area, nor is the school a Listed Building or a Building of Townscape Merit. The school playing field is identified as Local Open Space under the Council's Unitary Development Plan First Alteration (UDP).

Proposal

5. The erection of an aluminium unenclosed lean-to roof structure, fixed to the north elevation of the school, to provide shelter to children outside the external entry to classrooms. The structure would extend 2.6m from the existing wall. It would rise from an eaves of 2.36m to an abutment height of 3m. The roof would be made of bronze tinted polycarbonate and the structural elements would be powder coated in RAL 6001 (a medium green). All rainwater goods for the new structure would be in matching green powder coated aluminium. The lean-to roof would run from the north-east quoin of the classroom wing for a distance of 21.7m along the classsroom wall. 6. The existing entrance to the boys' and girls' toilets would be similarly roofed with a lean-to 2m deep and 4m wide with eaves at 2.4m and abutment at 2.8m. The toilets' configuration being relatively old, allows views of children inside the toilets. In accordance with recent safety advice a side enclosing screen of lightweight material, from just above ground to close to the eaves would also be erected to provide privacy to children. 7. The main roof would be between 2.2m and 4.2m from the side garden boundary of no.17 Egmont Road. It would be 2m from the rear garden boundary of no.13 Egmont Avenue. The toilet roof and screen would be between 3.2m and 3.4m from the of no.15 Egmont Avenue and 3.2m from the boundary of no.16 Egmont Avenue.

A44

Assessment

The main considerations material to the determination of this application are:

Principle of Proposed Development

8. Policy CS1 (New Community Facilities and the Extension of Existing Community Facilities) states that the Council will normally permit proposals for new community facilities, where required for operational purposes, but requires consideration to be given to conditions of public transport, traffic, residential amenities and the local environment. It is therefore considered that the lean-to roof, as a structure to shelter children, would be acceptable in principle, so long as the issues above are addressed.

Impact on Character of Area

9. The structure would be just about visible from the road. The character of the structure is one of an open-sided roof which extends from the eaves of the building to provide a shelter zone immediately outside the classroom wall. It would blend with its background setting of classroom wall and roof and clearly belong to the main school building. Its width would be moderate in scale, and its height less than the existing eaves. It is therefore considered that the proposed development would not have a detrimental impact on the character or appearance of the surrounding area.

Impact on Neighbours’ Residential Amenity

10. The use of the structure is intended to provide a covered walkway for pupils and general protection within the playground giving shelter in poor weather and during break-time. The walkway would also provide additional protection for quiet outdoors teaching. The risk of noise is therefore considered to be no greater than the present situation. 11. The closest rear wall of the neighbouring house gardens would be 2m from the eaves. The boundaries of the house back and side gardens running along the north boundary to the school opposite the proposed structure are solid to 1.5m high with chain-link fence above and screened to a limited degree by climbing plants. The structure would not have a significant adverse impact on the daylight or sunlight enjoyed by these houses. The extent of the proposal in depth would A45

be less than the present timber pergola. The scale of the proposed structure is not considered to significantly affect outlook or present a problem with privacy or overlooking. 12. It is therefore considered that the proposed extension would not harm the residential amenities currently enjoyed by neighbouring residents.

Highways & Parking

13. No alterations or changes are proposed to existing access or parking arrangements on site.

Trees

14. The proposal would not result in any loss of trees on or adjoining the site.

Legal Agreements

15. No legal agreements accompany the application.

Sustainability

16. The possibilities and expectations for sustainability in the proposal are limited; however the structure would meet the requirements of Building Regulations in this matter.

Other Material Considerations

17. The proposed structure would be accessible by people of all physical abilities, and is expected to meet DDA requirements as per part M of Building Regulations.

Reason for Approval

18. It is considered that the proposed development would not have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the area, the living conditions of adjoining occupiers or prejudice highway safety. The proposal would provide a sheltered walkway and sheltered area for quiet outside teaching. The proposal therefore accords with Policies H1, BE11, BE12, STR6, T1, CS1, OL6 and OL7 of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan First Alteration and policies CS8 and DM10 of the Core Strategy (pre-submission version December 2010).

A46

Recommendation :

2 The facing materials to be used in the construction of the building shall be those specified on the application form and approved drawings or such other materials as have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development is commenced. 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 First Alteration.

3 The site and building works required to implement the development shall be only carried out between the hours of 08.00 and 18.00 Mondays to Fridays and between 08.00 and 13.00 on Saturdays and not at all on Bank Holidays and Sundays. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the adjoining residential occupiers in accordance with Policy H1 of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan First Alteration.

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 A47

Residential Amenities), STR6 (Conserving and Enhancing the Built Environment) and T1 (Transport Safety) of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan First Alteration.

Informative(s)

1 Your attention is drawn to the need to comply with the relevant provisions of the Building Regulations, the Building Acts and other related legislation. These cover such works as - the demolition of existing buildings, the erection of a new building or structure, the extension or alteration to a building, change of use of buildings, installation of services, underpinning works, and fire safety/means of escape works. Notice of intention to demolish existing buildings must be given to the Council’s Building Control Service at least 6 weeks before work starts. A completed application form together with detailed plans must be submitted for approval before any building work is commenced. For further information and advice, contact – The Service Director (Planning and Transportation) (Building Control), Directorate of Environmental Services, Guildhall 11, Kingston upon Thames, on 020 8547 4699.

A48

Development Control Committee

Date of Meeting: 09/06/2011

A5 Register No : 11/16136/FUL

Address : DYSART SCHOOL, 186 EWELL ROAD, SURBITON, KT6 6HL

A49

Ward : Surbiton Hill Description of Proposal : Proposed external works including erection of a single storey classroom, installation of shade sail and partial enclosure of existing canopy and installation of timber decking Plan Type : Full Application Expiry Date : 23/05/2011

Applicant's Plan Nos :

CS-DYS-0001 Site plan Received 14/03/2011 CS-DYS-0002 Proposed Shelter Received 14/03/2011 CS-DYS-0002 Support Plan Received 14/03/2011 CS-DYS-0003 Proposed Sun Shade Received 14/03/2011 CS-DYS-0003 Support Plan Received 14/03/2011 CS-DYS-0004 Proposed Decking Received 14/03/2011 CS-DYS-0005 Proposed Classroom Received 14/03/2011 Design & Access Statement Received 28/03/2011

BASIC INFORMATION

Development Plan : Mayor for London - The London Plan Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames -Unitary Development Plan First Alteration

UDP Policies

BE11 Design of New Buildings and Extensions BE12 Layout and Amenity of Buildings and Extensions CS1 New Community Facilities and the Extension of Existing Community Facilities H1 Protection of Residential Amenities OL6 Protection of Other Open Land OL7 Open Space Improvement and Ancillary Development RES3 Determination of Planning Applications STR6 Conserving and Enhancing the Built Environment STR7 Safeguarding and Enhancing Open Land

Core Strategy Policies CS3 The Natural and Green Environment CS6 Sustainable Travel CS7 Managing Vehicle Use

A50

CS8 Character, Heritage and Design CS16 Community Facilities DM5 Green Belt, Metropolitan Open Land and Open Space Needs DM8 Sustainable Transport for new Development DM9 Managing vehicle use for new development DM10 Design requirements for new Developments DM23 Schools DM24 Protection and Provision of Community Facilities

Previous Relevant History

07/16342/FUL Erection of single storey extension Permit with expiry to Post 16 unit condition + condition 22/08/2007 99/07282/FUL Elevational alts. and raising roof of Permit Conditions part of school (Amendments to 19/11/1999 Permission 97/7342) and details pursuant to 97/7342,Conditions4,5,6(Materials) 7(Levels)8(Sound Insulation)9(Boundary Treatment/Refuse) 12&13(External plant/lighting).

Consultations

1. Neighbour notifications: 60 neighbours were notified. No objections received. 2. The Surbiton Planning Sub-Committee advised the application is supported. 3. Climate and Sustainability : Recommend a School Travel Plan condition be imposed that requires one to be submitted to the local planning authority for approval on an annual basis until 2014, in order to secure measures to improve sustainable travel options to the site to mitigate the impact of any increase in the volume of journeys made to the school site. 4. Neighbourhood Traffic Engineer : Works on Site: Deliveries and movements of heavy plant should be made outside of school arrival and pick up times. This will minimise the interaction of school children with site vehicles, and should be maintained for the duration of the works.The Gatesman and or banksman should be watchful of the interaction of children with site vehicles at all times, and restrict the movement of site vehicles when this is necessary. 5. Trees and Landscape : Regarding the light classroom structure beneath the Plane trees: 6. The impact upon the trees is comparatively minor provided that foundations are of mini-pile or pad design. BS5837:2005 allows for a 20% ingress into root protection zones provided the root structure is

A51

undamaged. 7. Condition K1A should be applied with special emphasis upon details for foundation design and demolition of the existing path and its reinstatement on a 'no-dig' base where it traverses the root systems of those retained trees. 8. Borough Valuer : No response received.

Site and Surroundings

9. The site is the Dysart School on the west side of Ewell Road in Surbiton. The site is not adjacent but is relatively close to two conservation areas, Oakhill and Fishponds. The school occupies the largest part of the site, leaving a varying gap of around 8m to the sides of the site, and an area of soft landscape with trees to the west. This soft landscape area is protected as Local Open Space.

Proposal

10. The application comprises 4 distinct components. For clarity, they will be referred to individually in this report. 11. A: External Shade: The erection of 2no. free-standing beige, canopy sails for sun-shading during teaching and play outside the nursery for nursery children. The canopies would occupy a footprint of 11m x 6m, and stand 3.4m high, supported from 6no. galvanised columns, each 140mm in diameter. They would be located within 1m of the north-east boundary to the back garden of no. 196-197 Ewell Road, and behind an existing classroom. The boundary to 196-197 Ewell Road is a solid fence approx. 1.2m high with chainlink fence above. The land on the flats' side drops by approx. 1m. 12. B: External screens: There is an existing 2m deep canopy roof attached to the external wall of the nursery which provides partial shelter to nursery children in poor weather. An extended counter canopy roof is proposed, together with clear perspex side screens to provide additional sheltered space for the nursery class to use in 'outdoors' time. The total extension would be 1.6 to 0.7m wide, and 6.2m long, attaching to the existing structure. 13. C: External decked area: In the north-east corner of the site, next to the ramp by the food technology classroom, a raised timber deck is proposed. It would measure 6m wide and run to a depth from the north-east corner of the site of 2.6m. It would have a timber construction with a balustrade ranging from 1.5-3.0m high overlooking the green space by the classrooms. The block of flats to the east would be 20m distant, and no.17 Kingsdowne Road who share the south boundary, 45m distant from the proposed structure. The boundary around the proposed structure is approx. 2.6m high chainlink fencing and well screened by vegetation. 14. D: New free-standing classroom: This duo-pitched roofed structure, 7.4x6.4m on plan, 2.9m to eaves, 4.5m to ridge, would be for therapy rather than a classroom for additional pupils, and would be located close to the south-west boundary beneath the London Plane trees, 14m from the A52

main school. Materials indicated for the classroom are timber clad walls and tiled or felted roof. The north, and north-west elevations would contain windows and entrance door.

Assessment

The main considerations material to the determination of this application are:

Principle of Proposed Development

15. Policy CS1 (New Community Facilities and the Extension of Existing Community Facilities) states that the Council will normally permit proposals for new community facilities, where required for operational purposes, but requires consideration to be given to conditions of public transport, traffic, residential amenities and the local environment. It is therefore considered that the lean-to roof, as a structure to shelter children, would be acceptable in principle, so long as the issues above are addressed.

Impact on Character of Area

16. A: External Shade: Whilst these sails would be visible from no.196- 197 Ewell Road, they are moderate in scale and tucked behing the boundary fence. They are architectural elements entirely consistent with school external areas, and well-designed structures. As such they would not have an adverse effect on the character or appearance of the area. 17. B: External screens: The enclosing side screens would sit beneath the marginally extended existing canopy roof. Whilst the ensemble would lack any architectural delight, the proposals would belong very much to the school building, and as such have little effect on the character or appearance of the area. 18. C: External decked area: This timber area is consistent with the soft, tree planted area in which it would stand, and take the opportunity of the west aspect of the site. It would not undermine the character or appearance of the area. 19. D: New free-standing classroom: This building would be situated in designated Open Space which has strict requirements governing the acceptability of ancillary development. The footprint of the proposed building is minimal and its mass and scale moderate and compact. A53

The appearance, were it conditioned to be in sympathetic materials such as the walls clad in timber boarding (as indicated in the design+access statement) and the roof planted as a green roof or finished in timber shingles, would be in keeping with the setting of grass and trees. As such the impact of the proposal on the open nature of the protected space is not considered to be detrimental. The proposed building is likely to require only pad or piled foundations and as such is unlikely to adversely affect the ecological value of the land, especially if a condition were applied to require a green roof in place of the open land lost. Subject to satisfactory detailing and design which could be achieved through condition, the character and appearance of the space and the wider area would not be adversely affected. Given the temporary appearance and short designed-life of the building it would also be necessary to attach a time limited condition to assess the visual and physical nature of the building in the future and its continuing contribution to the environment from a sustainability perspective. The proposal as adjusted, would therefore comply with policies BE3, BE11 and STR6 of the Kingston UDP.

Impact on Neighbours’ Residential Amenity

20. A: External Shade: The use of the structure is intended to provide a shade shelter for nursery children and general protection within the playground giving shelter in poor weather and during break-time. The shelter would also provide additional protection for quiet outdoors teaching. The risk of noise is therefore considered to be no greater than the present situation. Whilst the closest point of the structure to the flats at no.196-197 Ewell Road is 8m, the structure would be only marginally above the height of the boundary screen and is of an open nature. The structure would not have a significant adverse impact on the daylight or sunlight enjoyed by these flats. The scale of the proposed structure is not considered to significantly affect outlook or present a problem with privacy or overlooking. It is therefore considered that the proposed shade structure would not harm the residential amenities currently enjoyed by neighbouring residents 21. B: External screens: The marginal increase in height and footprint of the structure onto the existing, and the erection of perspex side panels within that structure zone is too remote to affect the light of neighbours and is not considered to significantly affect outlook or present a problem with privacy or overlooking. It is therefore considered that the proposed shade structure would not harm the residential amenities currently enjoyed by neighbouring residents. 22. C: External decked area: The block of flats to the east would be 20m distant, and no.17 Kingsdowne Road who share the south boundary, 45m distant from the proposed structure. The boundary around the proposed structure is approx. 2.6m high chainlink fencing and well screened by vegetation. The deck would be used as a supervised external learning area for a limited number of 16+ pupils. The scale of the proposed structure is not considered to significantly affect daylight or outlook or present a problem with privacy or overlooking. It is

A54

therefore considered that the proposed shade structure would not harm the residential amenities currently enjoyed by neighbouring residents. 23. D: New free-standing classroom: The use of the classroom would be for occupational therapy, with openings facing away from neighbouring houses. With a 2.9m eaves height and 4.5m ridge height, and being 40m+ from the closest neighbours at nos. 11+13 Kingsdowne Road, and screened by mature trees, there are not considered to be any residential amenity issues.

Highways & Parking

24. Works on Site: Deliveries and movements of heavy plant should be made outside of school arrival and pick up times. This will minimise the interaction of school children with site vehicles, and should be maintained for the duration of the works.The Gatesman and or banksman should be watchful of the interaction of children with site vehicles at all times, and restrict the movement of site vehicles when this is necessary. A condition has been added to this effect.

Sustainability

25. Recommend a School Travel Plan condition be imposed that requires one to be submitted to the local planning authority for approval on an annual basis until 2014, in order to secure measures to improve sustainable travel options to the site to mitigate the impact of any increase in the volume of journeys made to the school site. A condition has been added to this effect.

Trees

26. No response received to date of writing this report 07 April 2011. Any response will be reported as late material.

Legal Agreements

27. No legal agreements accompany the application.

Other Material Considerations

28. The proposed structure would be accessible by people of all physical abilities, and is expected to meet DDA requirements as per part M of Building Regulations.

A55

Reason for Approval

29. The proposal would not detract from the character and appearance of the area and no material harm would be caused to the residential amenities of neighbouring properties nor the neighbouring conservation areas in general. The proposal therefore complies with policies BE3, BE11, BE12, CS1, H1, OL6, OL7, T1, T20, STR6 and STR7 of the Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames Unitary Development Plan (First Alteration) and policies CS15, DM10, DM12 and DM23 of the Core Strategy (pre- submission version December 2010).

Recommendation :

2 The facing materials to be used in the construction of the A: External shades B: External Screens C: External deck area shall be those specified on the application form and approved drawings or such other materials as have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development is commenced. 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 First Alteration.

3 Full details of the materials, colour and texture of the external finish of element D: the free-standing classroom 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 First Alteration.

A56

4 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) and BE11 (Design of New Buildings and Extensions) of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan First Alteration.

6 All works on site shall take place in accordance with the following details which shall have previously been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of work: (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) Measures to protect any tree, shrubbery and other landscape features to be retained on the site during the course of development. (h) Means of enclosure of the site.

7 Before the first occupation of the building 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) in accordance with Policy T13 (Facilities for People with Disabilities) of the Royal

A57

Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan First Alteration.

8 The site and building works required to implement the development shall be only carried out between the hours of 08.00 and 18.00 Mondays to Fridays and between 08.00 and 13.00 on Saturdays and not at all on Bank Holidays and Sundays. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the adjoining residential occupiers in accordance with Policy H1 of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan First Alteration.

9 Prior to commencement of the development of the free-standing classroom, a detailed arboricultural method statement and tree protection plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority including details for foundation design and demolition of the existing path and its reinstatement on a 'no-dig' base where it traverses the root systems of those retained trees. This submission shall include: (a) A plan to a scale and level of accuracy appropriate to the proposal, that shows the positions, crown spreads and root protection areas (RPA) of every retained tree on site, and on nearby ground or land adjacent to the site, in relation to the approved plans. (b) A schedule of pre-construction tree works for the above-detailed trees, where appropriate. (c) Details and positions of the tree root protection zones. (d) Details and positions of tree protection barriers and ground protection where appropriate. (e) Details and positions of the construction exclusion zones. (f) Details and positions of the existing and proposed underground service runs, to be routed to avoid root protection zones where possible. (g) Details and positions of any change in levels or the positions of any excavations within 5m of the root protection area of retained trees. (h) Details of any special engineering required to accommodate the protection of retained trees (e.g. in connection with foundations, service installation, bridging water features, surfacing).

A58

(i) Details of the working methods to be employed for the installation of drives, paths within the RPA's of retained trees in accordance with the principles of 'No Dig' construction. The details shall be in accordance with British Standard BS: 5837: 2005 sections 9.3, 9.2, 9, 11.7, 5.2.2 and 10 for requirements (c) to (h) inclusive. The approved protection scheme shall be implemented prior to commencement of any work on site and maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority until the completion of the development. Reason: In the interests of visual amenities and so 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 First Alteration.

Informative(s)

1 Please note that the roof material of the free-standing classroom submitted as part of the application was considered inappropriate to the character and appearance of the area, the open space, and the setting of the conservation area and that a 'green' planted roof was considered as an acceptable alternative, to be submitted under condition 4 of this approval.

2 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

3 Your attention is drawn to the need to comply with the relevant provisions of the Building Regulations, the Building Acts and other related legislation. These cover such works as - the demolition of

A59

existing buildings, the erection of a new building or structure, the extension or alteration to a building, change of use of buildings, installation of services, underpinning works, and fire safety/means of escape works. Notice of intention to demolish existing buildings must be given to the Council’s Building Control Service at least 6 weeks before work starts. A completed application form together with detailed plans must be submitted for approval before any building work is commenced. For further information and advice, contact – The Service Director (Planning and Transportation) (Building Control), Directorate of Environmental Services, Guildhall 11, Kingston upon Thames, on 020 8547 4699.

4 Works on Site: Deliveries and movements of heavy plant are to be made outside of school arrival and pick up times. This will minimise the interaction of school children with site vehicles, and should be maintained for the duration of the works.The Gatesman and or banksman should be watchful of the interaction of children with site vehicles at all times, and restrict the movement of site vehicles when this is necessary.

A60

Development Control Committee

9 June 2011

Late Material - A2: 11/12131/FUL – Railway Wharf

Further Information submitted by the applicant

1. Appendices for the Basil Rickard’s report

One of the documents submitted was an article in the Surrey Comet on the 26 th March 1947 which is aimed to demonstrate that the 1947 flood was not as serious as suggested.

2. A list of moorings provided by the EA on the 13 th July 2009 .

3. Berthing Inspection Report supplied by AC Surveying. Key points are detailed below.

3.1 This report was submitted as part of the evidence for the hearing in 2010 which was dismissed.

3.2 The report states that at ‘normal’ river conditions the top of the wharf is about 1.2m to 1.6m above the river water level.

3.3 The worst case scenario including climate change effects is expected to occur every 100 years with a flow rate of 900 cumecs, which would equate to a current of about 4kts and the water level above the wharf predicted to be 1.85m.

3.4 The wharf itself is considered a good mooring facility for short or long term use. Although some repair work is required.

3.5 The wharf height in their opinion is not particularly suitable for smaller craft with deck levels below 850mm. This presents difficulties with disembarking and boarding for lower freeboard vessels.

3.6 The mooring points on the wharf are considered insufficient at present and require upgrading for the use as temporary or long terms moorings in any case exiting mooring points consist of small cleats and rings too small in dimension, not adequately spaced and not sufficient in number.

3.7 In flood events where the water level would rise above the height of the wharf level and in order to prevent vessels drifting onto the wharf, riser piles could be installed in the existing recesses. We recommend a height of about 2 metres above wharf level to exceed flood levels of the worst case scenario. 3.8 In conclusion, with the provision of riser piles and rails and adequate moorings points on the wharf we would consider the wharf suitable for mooring for larger craft on a temporary basis in any river condition.

3.9 With sufficient moorings points on the vessel and on the mooring as well as suitably sized and maintained ropes, larger vessels would withstand flow levels well in excess of 4kts.

3.10 To prevent collisions of debris damaging the boats, a deflecting boom could be installed.

3.11 Boarding Access Conclusion – We consider the access during flood levels above the wharf level and up to 750mm above to be practical and safe with roped access by wading or hand pulled dinghies. Emergency access during higher flood levels above 750mm above wharf level can be provided by the RNLI or other suitable boat operators or in the worst case scenario via emergency services and helicopters access.

3.12 It should be noted that this arrangement was put before the planning inspectorate who commented as per below:

‘The appellant’s FRA comments that both boats have their own unsinkable tenders that could be used to convey occupiers to dry land during a severe flood event. However, that is not a satisfactory solution, as recognised by the appellant’s own surveyor, not least because the availability and serviceability of the vessels cannot be guaranteed. The surveyor also commented that at times when the Wharf might be flooded up to a depth of 750mm, access by wading or by hand pulled dinghies would be practical and safe, and that during higher flood levels, emergency access could be provided by the RNLI or other suitable boat operators. I heard conflicting evidence in this respect, as to the likely rate of flow of flood water across the site. I am mindful however, that the appeal site lies immediately adjacent to the main river channel. Consequently, I tend towards the evidence of the Environment Agency that water on the site would be unlikely to be still (as asserted by the appellant). Having regard to the precautionary principle, I am not convinced that it would be necessarily safe or desirable to access or depart from the appeal site in the manner suggested. As to rescue by the RNLI or other boat operators, that is precisely the situation that PPS25 is seeking to avoid in directing new development to areas with a lower flood risk. I recognise that since ground levels next to the moorings rise slightly away from the river, the depth of flood water adjacent to the Wharf would reduce to a corresponding degree. Nevertheless, any person attempting to leave, or get to the moored vessels during a severe flood event, would have to negotiate moving water of some depth close to the riverside, at a time when the edge of the Wharf would be covered, a potentially dangerous manoeuvre.’

3.13 Bridge Height – We do not consider the air draft of the vessel protruding under the railway bridge currently to be an issue, which cannot easily be resolved by cutting away of the existing awning or by moving the vessel to the alternative mooring. 3.14 It should be noted that this arrangement was put before the planning inspectorate who commented as per below:

‘The upstream boat, Benfleet, lies partly beneath the railway bridge and I share the concerns of the Environment Agency that, in rising water, the boat could become trapped beneath the bridge, damaging the vessel and potentially harming anyone on it at the time. Although I was advised that the upper canopy could easily be removed, it was confirmed during the site visit that it was not designed to be removable and that it would need to be sawn off.’

4. Member briefing note sent by Applicant summarised below.

Loss of leisure moorings (i) most overnight visitors prefer to tie up by the tow path just upstream of Kingston Bridge where there is always spare capacity and they can have a peaceful night’s sleep. (ii) The moorings as they currently stand are unsafe for a small craft

Flood Risk (i) The boats, in an extreme flood, may be pushed and stranded onto the car park land. This can be safely managed by installing rising piles. (ii) The boat nearest the bridge could hit the railway bridge. This can be safely managed by letting out the ropes sufficiently to allow further headroom and attach a moveable pole – to push the boat further into the river away from the bridge.

5. E-mail from applicant 05/06/2011

5.1 In Mr Rickard’s report of 18th May, he referred to a revision, by the EA, of the flood gradient. On the phone, speaking to Mr Richard Peddie, an EA engineer, it appears that Mr Rickards original estimated gradient of 0.8 metres drop in river level from Canbury Wharf to Teddington Lock at the height of the 1947 flood should be revised to between 0.3 and 0.4 metres drop.

5.2 If we use the 0.4 metre drop in gradient for safety, this puts the whole of the 1947 flood within bank at Canbury Wharf, except for the afternoon of 20th March when it was 0.2 metres below water at the edge, extending one quarter the way towards the downriver entrance to the car park. This matches eye witness evidence from the 1947 flood very, very closely indeed.

5.3 Given that Mr Rickards flood model has completely disproven the 1 in 5 and 1 in 20, and now the 1947, flood models it is our belief that the Environment Agency’s model is too discredited to rely on.

5.4 It is widely accepted that there has been a substantial increase in bank full capacity since 1947. The 1 in 100 flood is 750 cumecs, only 5% more flow than the 1947 flood. A 5% increase in flow over that of the 1947 flood does not seem very substantial. It seems obvious now, that it is perfectly probable that a 1 in 100 flood would be contained entirely in bank, at Canbury Wharf.

5.5 As for the 1 in 100 plus 20% scenario, please remember that we are only asking for a 50 year licence anyway and the 20% increase is predicted to take 100 years to come about. But in any case the amount of flow out of bank in the 1 in 100 plus 20% scenario is very little more than that originally predicted by the Environment Agency for the 1 in 20 year flood.

5.6 We hope this will assist you in understanding the key conclusions of Mr Rickard’s report, which we would once again emphasise has been independently verified by a distinguished Chartered Civil Engineer.

6. Supplementary Report Regarding Flood Risk – 08/06/11

6.1 A supplementary report has been submitted which according to the applicant “shows that the EA flood map for the 1 in 100 and 1 in 100+20% is equally as flawed as the 1 in 5 and 1 in 20 that he has already disproved, with full backing of Mr Brian Cheetham a Chartered Civil Engineer with local knowledge of this reach of the Thames.”

6.2 This report uses data from the 1947 flood event to estimate the impact of a 1 in 100 or a 1 in 100 plus 20% event.

6.3 The applicant comments as follows: “We would point out that Mr Rickard has taken over 18 months to compile his report and that he has only just been able to finish this supplementary report we are confident that this new information, which was not available at the appeal last year would certainly prove our case to an Inspector. We have been saying all along that the EA model is wrong and that the assertion that this is a 'valuable visitor mooring' is nonsense - we have given you strong evidence that we are totally correct. We believe that members should make their decision on solid evidence not unsupported assertions and that it would be perverse in the extreme to continue to recommend refusal given the strength of the evidence before you from a number of valid sources.”

Further Consultation Responses Received

7. Neighbour Notification

7.1 A further 36 letters of support have been received for the application. These raise the following additional representations:

• This position helps prevent antisocial behaviour in a place that would otherwise be hidden from view. • The height of the moorings means that they aren’t suitable for temporary or casual use. • Enhances the area. • Part of the charm and history of the Thames. • The LDF supports this use of the river.

8. Environment Agency

Response to Officers Report.

8.1 We have now had the opportunity to read the development control committee report. It is clear that the planning policy surrounding this proposal has not materially changed since the dismissal of the previous planning appeal and that the reasons for refusal and the planning policy relied upon to support them are still relevant. In particular: • The proposal is contrary, in flooding terms to the requirements of Planning Policy Statement 25, Policy K24 of the K plus 20 Area Action Plan and Policy DM7 of the submission version of your core strategy. • The proposal is contrary, in respect of moorings and the resulting impact on visitors and river users, to the requirements of Policy K13 of the K plus 20 Area Action Plan, Policies CS4 and DM7 of the submission version of your core strategy and relevant policies of the London Plan (4C.7 and 4C.10) and the draft replacement London Plan (7.25, 7.26 and 7.27).

8.2 We therefore agree with both reasons recommending refusal of planning permission.

8.3 Also, the South East Plan included a specific policy (T12) on freight transport that encourages the movement of freight by water by safeguarding wharves, depots and other sites that are or could be critical in developing water transport.

Response to Specific Questions Asked and Elaboration.

8.4 In respect of the specific questions asked in your email dated 26 May 2011 we have the following answers.

Question One

8.5 Flood risks at the site are considered significant as floodwater is expected to be deep, turbulent and potentially fast flowing during the peak of a one per cent annual probability (1 in 100 year) flood incident. We remain concerned as to the hazard this could pose to occupants wishing to access or egress from the boats in such situations. The boathouses are located immediately adjacent and partly under the railway bridge. Flows in this location are expected to be locally faster and more turbulent in times of flood as a result of the influence of the bridge structure. Furthermore, as detailed in paragraph 21 of the Inspectors decision to the previous appeal there is a risk that the boat ‘Benfleet’ could become trapped under the bridge at times of high flow. This not only presents a risk to the occupants but also of damage to the bridge structure. We therefore consider the risk to be sequentially greater here than in other locations along the Thames.

8.6 Our December 2009 Appeal Statement also discussed these risks. Whilst we have updated our predicted flood model since the previous appeal, the outputs of our latest model do not fundamentally alter these conclusions. Indeed, as highlighted in your email, predicted peak floodwater levels within the channel of the Thames have marginally increased at this site for the one per cent annual probability flood.

Question Two

8.7 An increase in the predicted peak floodwater level during a one per cent annual probability incident is not beneficial to the proposal. When considering the flood risks to a proposed development we wish to ensure that, as a minimum, the arrangements are acceptable in flood incidents up to and including the one per cent annual probability (1 in 100 year), with suitable consideration of the potential impacts of climate change over the lifetime of the development. Such flood incidents are identified within Planning Policy Statement 25 as having a high probability of occurring in any year. A reduction in predicted floodwater levels in smaller flood incidents (such as the 20 per cent annual probability incident stated in your email) is clearly of positive news to those who might be affected, but in this instance it does not fundamentally alter our position to this development.

Question Three

8.8 This location is particularly unacceptable due to the loss of a short stay visitor mooring and the loss of a public wharf which would result. ‘The Thames Waterway Plan’ which you have signed up to highlights the need to establish more visitor mooring river wide. This increases local revenues and encourages navigation on the Thames.

8.9 We have a 24 hour short stay visitor mooring adjacent to the permanently moored vessels and the size and type of vessels now present on the wharf restrict easy access to our upstream mooring by smaller craft. This is also one of the few public wharfs left on the Thames where commercial loading and unloading of vessels can be undertaken, with most of the others having been lost to housing development. The wharf has also been used in the past to facilitate both road and rail bridge works as a site compound and mooring for vessels engaged in those works. Lastly this unconsented mooring is taking place on our land, Kingston are the bank owners whereas we are the bed owners.

8.10 Furthermore we consider that this proposal would be contrary to some key policies contained in the Thames Waterway Plan. The Thames Waterway Plan was prepared by the Environment Agency on behalf of the River Thames Alliance. The River Thames alliance is a partnership of the key organisations that have an interest in the river. They include local authorities ( including the Royal Borough of Kingston) that border the river, statutory bodies, trade organisations and user groups.

8.11 The overall aim of the Thames Waterway Plan is to map out the reinvigoration of leisure and tourism along the river corridor in ways that are both socially inclusive and sustainable.

8.12 Section 10.7 of the Thames Waterway Plan refers to residential boats with Policy 23 – ‘residential boats’ stating " We will support the creation of new residential boat moorings in off-river basins with suitable facilities”. There is demand for moorings that have suitable facilities for residential boats and some consider that boats may provide affordable housing. However, the responsibilities of the navigation authority, local authority and land owners can be confused. To clarify this and ensure that those living on boats can do so legitimately and safely, the Association of Inland Navigation Authorities (AINA) has established a Residential Boating issues Group to produce guidance. Policy 23 of the Thames waterway plan is consistent with that guidance.

8.13 Other sections of the Thames Waterway Plan which are relevant are:

• Section10.6 of the plan which refers to Freight transport. In particular, Policy 22 – ‘freight’ states: “We will encourage commercial transport of freight on the river ”. • Section 10.4 of the plan refers to Visitor moorings. Policy 19 – ‘Visitor moorings’ states that "We will provide visitor moorings to meet boaters needs”.

8.14 The plan states that visitor moorings are, by far, the most requested area for improvement by boaters on the river. There are more gaps in the provision of visitor mooring than any other facility needed on the river.

Further Information Submitted

8.15 We received further information which challenges the accuracy of this reach of our Thames Flood Model on the 06 June 2011. This is a revision to the information submitted with the planning application which you already have our response to. We now do not have the time to review this information prior to the committee meeting taking place. We have been subject to late submissions of information in respect of this site before, particularly at the planning appeal. We will not be able to review this information or provide a response to it at the planning committee this Thursday.

8.16 We have a specific duty to produce flood modelling and we have, as you are aware, recently reviewed our information which showed the differences which have been described in response to question two. For your convenience we enclosed the differences in the flood levels between our 2005 and 2010 flood models in the Appendix to our previous response on this planning application.

9. Further comments from the Councils Neighbourhood Traffic Engineer

9.1 Regarding the freight use: the site could be used for freight use, but that should be limited to minor operations, the reason for that is the location of the site which is at the vicinity of the Park, which means on health and safety ground we need to maintain an access for all road users within safe environment. And using the site for freight is something we would like to encourage but I can't see it happening in the near future, we did not even consider it in our latest LIP.

10. Further comments from the Councils Property Service

10.1 The response to the planning application in 2008 stated that the Council’s Property Service would not wish to see permanent moorings established at this location. This had regard to 2 factors: firstly, that the planning policy was to retain these moorings as a temporary facility; secondly, that the Environment Agency had objections to these moorings becoming a permanent facility.

10.2 In managing the Council’s land, we endeavour to avoid doing anything that would contravene either any policy the Council, as Local Planning Policy, may have made or any policy or requirement of any other statutory body. However, if any such policies or requirements were to change such that the Council, as landowner, could consider dealing with its land in a way it could otherwise not have done, then it would incumbent upon officers to consider those changed circumstances and, if necessary, advise the Council, as landowner i.e. the Policy and Resources Committee and Executive, of the new option(s) for dealing with its land.

10.3 When looking at this particular case, the 2 reasons why, in 2008, the Council’s Borough Valuer felt it would be inappropriate for the status of these moorings to change from temporary to permanent i.e. planning policy and the Environment Agency’s objections, remain. Consequently, it was reasonable for the Council’s Property Service, to maintain the view for retaining the temporary moorings, particularly in view of the decisions refusing planning permission since 2008. However, if planning policy were to change and/or planning permission for permanent moorings were to be granted, then I believe that, alone, would be sufficient for officers to re-consider how the future of these particular moorings might be dealt with.

10.4 If, in considering the future, the Council, as landowner, was minded to allow the permanent mooring of boats at this location, the strength of the Environment Agency’s known objection, together with what statutory powers they might have to enforce their objection or otherwise prevent the permanent mooring of boats at this location, would then need to be considered. I also believe it would be sensible to consider the future of these particular moorings not in isolation, but in relation to other stretches of the river between here and Queens Promenade, for which there will undoubtedly be a number of options, including revisiting the idea of providing permanent moorings at Town End Wharf, as suggested in the ‘Kingston upon Thames Business Plan Mooring Study (Thames Side to Queens Promenade)’ produced in March 2006, subject, of course, to feasibility and funding.

10.5 Therefore, any objection I would make to the establishment of permanent moorings is in the context I have explained and only for so long as the 2 obstacles to the establishment of permanent moorings remain. If those obstacles were no longer present, then it would be for the Council, as landowner, to decide whether, and to what extent, it might be willing to allow these moorings to be used as a permanent facility, for which, in my opinion, it would be appropriate to submit a report to the Policy & Resources Committee and the Executive.

11. Response from Michael Shefras MBE. Chair RUG8, ATYC and River Thames Alliance Mooring Group received 03/06/2011.

11.1 From a users perspective as advised after consultation with my boating colleagues within the Association of Thames Yacht Clubs we would have no objection in an annual licence be given to the two residential house boats currently taking up what are designated visitor moorings.

11.2 Our reason for this is that those moorings are not suitable for the majority of recreational craft who desperately need Kingston to consider their need to moor on the riverside to use the trading and recreational facilities available. 11.3 This could easily be achieved by Kingston allowing shopping and visitor moorings on vacant mooring sites in the middle of the town for example John Lewis and outside the restaurants above the bridge.

11.4 The Town End finger pontoon moorings have fallen into disrepair and with minimal cost be improved to a size that can take a 10/12 mtr boat without problem. There is no reason why Kingston should not be able to charge for the facility to get a fiscal return. We would recommend a £5 charge for 1600 – 1100 and at other times no charge to enable passing boaters to take lunch or shop. This would need to be enforced to avoid the take-over by ‘squatters’.

11.5 On balance we would be prepared to sacrifice the two poor moorings given a quid pro quo for more recreational moorings elsewhere on the river frontage in Kingston.

11.6 We would approve sites for Residential Moorings providing we have the balance to follow our suggestions above.

12. Letter of support from adjoining site owner - NHP Leisure Developments Ltd

12.1 I understand that the above application is to be considered by the Development Control committee on Thursday this week. We write to confirm that, as the Freehold owners of the adjoining Barge Dock, we would have no objection to the grant of permission for the residential mooring applied for, since we believe that the presence of the owners of the houseboat is of benefit with regard to the upkeep and security of this Thameside location. Having been living there for some considerable time under a temporary consent, it seems perfectly reasonable for the applicants to enjoy their floating home in this location permanently in the knowledge they won't be asked to move on.

13. Letter of Objection Commercial Boat Operators Association

13.1 On behalf of the Commercial Boat Operators Association (CBOA) I am writing to OBJECT to the planning application above.

13.2 We wrote (letter from J. Dodwell, CBOA, 9th February 2011) to the Inspector for the recent appeal for this site, supporting the EA in OPPOSING use of the wharf for permanent residential moorings.

13.3 Our barge operating members have need of wharves like this, for bringing in and out construction materials and excavation material when the need arises. If the wharf is used for permanent moorings, wharf usage by barges would not be possible. In the letter we quoted Peel Ports as being a typical potential user for this wharf. The wharf must be retained for casual use by all waterway craft. 13.4 User the River Thames for water transport takes many lorries off the local roads in the town, this reducing road congestion and exhaust emissions.

13.5 As the same reasons apply here as for the appeal, I will re-quote some of the back up reasoning why water transport should be used. These reasons are also applicable for other wharves in the wider London region:-

a. Planning Policy Guideline 13 – Transport – states that “Land use planning has a key role in delivering the Government’s integrated transport policy”. b. PPG 13 also said that local authorities should identify and, where appropriate, protect wharves for freight use, including the re-opening of disused wharves. c. This was supported by PPG 11/PPS11 – regional planning; PPG 12 – development plans; PPG 10 – planning and waste management. d. The Mayor's London Plan states that existing waterborne freight facilities – such as wharves - must to be safeguarded wherever possible (Policy 7.26). e. The Blue Ribbon Network Policy promotes sustainable growth through freight use of the waterways, and by safeguarding wharves (sections 4C.6 & 4C.8). Section 4C.6 specifically refers to waterside land use being prioritized for those industries which need a waterside location. The use of this Wharf for permanent residential moorings would not comply with this policy. f. The Department for Transport supports how planning authorities should accommodate use of waterways for freight (GPG2122 - Planning for Freight on Inland Waterways).

14. Letter of Support from Canbury and Riverside Association

14.1 I am writing on behalf of residents who have contacted CARA (Canbury And Riverside Association) during the consultation phase of planning application ref 11/12131. This application relates to request to a change of use of two moorings at Railway Wharf (adjacent to Canbury Gardens in North Kingston) to one of permanent residential status for the two houseboats currently located at the site.

14.2 Just by way of background, CARA is a non-political and purely voluntary organisation which over its twenty year history has set out to protect and enhance amenities within the area bordered by Richmond Road to the east, Lower Kings Road and Canbury Place to the south, the River Thames to the west and Hawker Leisure Centre to the north.

14.3 Such applications as this often raise debate and so we are moved to report that based on comments we have received, it appears that there is general support for this application and we would therefore recommend the Council approve such permanent mooring rights as applied for.

14.4 The current occupiers are well established and active members of the local community. Not only are they model river residents - paying all relevant duties and taxes; they also exercise a not insignificant degree of care looking after and

enhancing that strip of river frontage. Additionally, their consistent presence (and vigilance) improves the security of what would otherwise be an transient and vacant area in an already challenging crime risk location.

14.5 Given the time they have been there, it is not felt that changing the status of the moorings will have any material impact on the availability of visitor moorings. We also do not believe the presence of these two houseboats constitutes any significant flood risk to Kingston town centre or local residents and businesses.

14.6 Overall we like to see the Environment Agency continuing to focus it's attention on the large number of itinerant (and unlicensed) boats clearly visible along the towpath and who take up and block moorings to the significant inconvenience of bone fide river visitors.

15. E-mail of Objection from Freight Afloat Consultants

15.1 E-mail was received from Freight Afloat Consultants objecting to the application. Concerns include:

15.2 The loss of freight moorings. There is growing pressure for the river to take freight and the introduction of the Modal Shift Revenue Support Scheme is likely to increase the demand. The GLA recently commissioned consultants to examine all wharves within its boundary to assess their potential and to assess the need for safeguarding. Its aim is to encourage water borne freight in the longer term.

15.3 The loss of this wharf would run contrary to the Mayor's policy and counter to the cultural change that is driving the demand for sustainable transport. I would also draw your attention to a recent incident when a pair of commercial narrow boats was unable to use the wharf to load domestic coal and diesel. An alternative and less suitable site had to be found in order that the company could conduct its business. This is clearly unacceptable.

15.4 London Plan Policies 4A.12 (Flooding ) & 4A.13 (Flood Risk Management ) should be added to reason for refusal No 1.

15.5 Unitary Development Plan Policy OL18 (Flooding) should also be included within reason for refusal No 1.

16. Objection from Regents Network and a member of the London Waterways Commission.

Comments include:

Another attempt for the important Thames wharf to be lost permanently to residential moorings is strongly opposed.

a. Regents Network gave evidence to the Appeal which successfully upheld the rejection of the previous application for change of use of the wharf. It was agreed at the Hearing that “its lawful use is as a public wharf, with visitor moorings for stays of up to 24 hours”. This position should be maintained for the active and long-term use of the wharf by all waterways users rather than restricted use, permanently, for the benefit of just two boats.

b. Freight promoted - There is a large amount of promotion for the development of water freight, from Government Policies and Planning Guidance (see Department for Transport website), all the way through the legislative system to the local level. Kingston has some sound policies that encourage water freight.

c. The London Plan is particularly strong on the potential for water freight (for instance BRN Policies 4C.8 and 4C.9), and the emerging Replacement London Plan promotes water freight and the retention and development of wharf and access facilities on London’s Blue Ribbon Network. The Regents Network gave evidence at the recent EiP for the Replacement Plan, where many aspects of water freight were discussed in detail.

d. Safeguarding wharves is also featured in the Replacement London Plan. There are already over 50 wharves safeguarded in the tidal Thames, and this safeguarding is recommended to extend further upstream and on the non-tidal Thames as well as on the Lee Navigation and London’s canals.

e. The consultation and wharf appraisal process for safeguarding is already under way prior to the publication of the Replacement London Plan. During discussions and submissions at the EiP, Railway Wharf in Kingston got a mention at City Hall as an example of good potential as a commercial wharf.

f. Future projects - Regents Network is in discussion with a freight operator to use Railway Wharf for a future construction project on the Thames, for disposal of construction and excavation waste, and as a loading point for building materials.

g. During last summer 100s of tons of coal and fuel were loaded at an unofficial site in Kingston, but the operators would have preferred to use Railway Wharf. Regents Network is assisting them to negotiate with the Council to make provision at Railway Wharf for future use in the coming months.

Working together

The Regents Network objective and widely spread slogan is “Bringing London’s Waterways back to life”. Our hundreds of miles of rivers and canals are becoming more static, and risk ending up as a backdrop rather than a functioning and active navigation. There are only a few miles in Central London that are busy, and there is plenty of room for further increase in activity even there. A very large part of the answer to the active future is the wide scale development of freight. And our waterways will again be making an important contribution to the economy of our capital city.

The Regents Network support the Environment Agency in their opposition to the above application, just as we supported them in the Appeal Hearing in February 2010. They have a very positive attitude to navigation and the active use of the waterways, especially a key one such as the River Thames.

The Commercial Boat Operators Association (CBOA) also oppose the application, and the Regents Network agrees with their proposal for retaining Railway Wharf for commercial use and encouraging freight by water, just as CBOA have done so successfully in Leeds and elsewhere around the nation’s inland waterway network.

There are a number of agencies and groups working together on a concerted effort to promote the Water Freight Industry.

Visitor moorings

Although water freight is a prime objective, Regents Network does not dismiss other activities on the waterways, and navigation can cover a wide variety of active uses. The reduction of the potential of Railway Wharf as a visitor mooring would be unacceptable. There are far too few visitor moorings on the Thames (in particular on the tidal section and in the centre of the city), and there is a campaign to provide attractive facilities for boaters rather then them just passing through.

Note: Time does not allow more information and detail.

Attached is a Department for Transport map, and you will see that the Upper Thames is designated as one of the “Key Inland Waterways of Great Britain with Freight Potential”.

C Officer Comments

17. Use of Visitor Moorings

15.1 Investigations have been undertaken into the demand for visitor moorings in the Borough. The Council does not hold any surveys or information in the take up and useage of visitor moorings. However the Kingston Moorings Implementation Report (December 2009) (unpublished) states “There is a general wish to improve the existing mooring facilities within Kingston it is also accepted that a limited provision of residential or leisure moorings would be reasonable both to help meet local demand and to assist in funding the on going management of both the new and existing facilities”

15.2 We also contacted the Environment Agency who stated that they receive numerous calls requesting the availability of visitor mooring within Kingston.

18. Emergency Evacuation

16.1 No specific comments have been received from the Council’s Emergency Planning Officer however the evacuation plan submitted is identical to that submitted to the Inspector at Inquiry and therefore the conclusions that the Inspector drew remain relevant to the determination of this application.

19. Relevance of the 1947 Flood Event

17.1 The information submitted by the applicant relies heavily on the impact of the 1947 flood event applied to today. It should be stressed that the 1947 flood is irrelevant to the consideration of this application. The Environment Agency commented as follows: “The applicant’s analysis of the 1947 flood event and re- running an equivalent event today is not relevant because the 1947 event does not have the same flows to recreate the 1% or 1% with climate change flood”. Development Control Committee

9 June 2011

Late Material – Other Items

Overview

1. All references of the Core Strategy should now refer to as it as the ‘Submission Draft Version May 2011’.

A1 – 10/12832/FUL – Town End Pier

1. A further letter of objection was received regarding the use of Turks Launches. Particular reference is made to the late night disturbance from the business, especially when customers are leaving and employees of Turks leave the boat engines running.

2. The applicant has submitted an updated Flood Warning & Evacuation Plan to include the latest codes.

A3 – 11/16067/FUL – St Andrews & St Marks Primary Schools

1. The covered walkway element to the application is removed from the application and is no longer due for consideration. The description for the application is therefore amended to read:

‘Erection of 2no Single storey modular classrooms’

2. An additional informative should be added to any consent.

The permission hereby granted under planning application reference 11/16067/FUL does not include the provision of a covered walkway as shown on plan number TFT 02 Rev A.

A5 – 11/16136/FUL – Dysart School

1. Removal of informative No 1 to exclude the presumption in favour of a green roof.

2. Paragraph 25 of the report recommends that a School Travel Plan condition should be applied to any consent. However, this application does not propose to increase the number of pupils attending Dysart School and as such, it would be considered unreasonable to apply any such condition. APPENDIX B DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

9 JUNE 2011

PLANNING DELEGATIONS

REPORT BY THE INTERIM HEAD OF PLANNING

SUMMARY

This report is seeking to change the current scheme of delegation, which is out of date and due to a lack of clarity in some places, does not wholly allow the prioritisation of planning applications that matter to the local community. As such it does not fully reflect the Council’s aspirations to put the community at the heart of service delivery.

A number of recommendations are proposed which will result in the changes to the scheme of delegation and these have been informed by a period of research and consultation with Members.

These are: - Rebalancing the applications which go to Neighbourhood and Development Control committees - That all applications (including screening and /or scoping opinions required under the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 1999) will be delegated to officers subject to the following exceptions: - Applications with 2 objections (householder) and 3 objections (other application - ‘major’ and ‘minor’ proposals contrary to Council’s development plan policy (i.e. departures) and are recommended for approval - those in a conservation area where the recommendation is to approve contrary to the views of the Conservation Area Advisory Committee - “major” and “minor” proposals contrary to Council policy - Members and employees of the Council’s applications - any application which in the view of the Head of Planning should be considered by the Committee - Introducing a formal Members Call in procedure which means any application can be called in for consideration by committee

In considering the changes to the delegations scheme the possibility of combining Neighbourhood Committees and Planning Sub-Committees was discussed. It is proposed that this is considered further in the light of 6 months experience of operating the new scheme and that the decision whether or not to change current working arrangements is delegated to the Interim Head of Planning in consultation with Neighbourhood Chairs and Vice Chairs/Co Chairs

It is RECOMMENDED that

1. the new scheme of delegation set out in Annex 2 and the changes to the Development Control Committee’s Terms of Reference at Annex 3 based on recommendations 1-5 contained in the report are agreed;

2. the Council is recommended to agree the changes to the Council’s Constitution. B2

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATIONS To agree a new scheme of delegation to Officers and to revise the responsibilities of the Development Control Committee and Neighbourhood Committees

BACKGROUND

1. Royal Borough of Kingston takes a progressive stance in relation to community engagement in the planning process. As a result it is relatively well placed to respond to the Localism and Decentralism bill when its provisions are enacted early next year. The Council introduced neighbourhood committees in 1994 which enabled decision making at a local level, including for planning applications. In addition within the Planning service we have encouraged the public to engage as far as possible in the development of our policy contained in the emerging Core Strategy. We also actively encourage developers to engage with the community about proposals at pre-application stage so they can play an active role in shaping their local areas.

2. We recognise that improvements need to be made on an ongoing basis to ensure that our Service is fit for purpose and responsive to customers and residents needs. This is particularly important as we strive to operate efficiently and demonstrate value for money. Our limited resources mean that we need to prioritise what we do and actively question ourselves to ensure that our resources are targeted in a way that meets the wider aspirations of our community.

3. In this vein one of the key improvements we have identified is a review of the scheme of delegation. The Council’s existing scheme of delegation remains largely unchanged from the 1980s and as such it does not wholly reflect the Council’s direction of travel as set out above.

4. The recommendations set out in this report to amend the Scheme of Delegation, seek to achieve the following outcomes.

• Increase clarity and transparency of the Council‘s decision making process, in relation to:

i) how different types of applications are determined. ii) the different roles of Members in representing the views of the local community as well as being decision makers in the planning process.

• Increase efficiencies in service delivery and prioritise resources to focus on what matters to residents and customers by:

i) Focusing at Member level on applications which the local community are concerned about and to ensure that those applications which do not need the same level of resource are dealt with in the most efficient manner. ii) Freeing up more officer time to focus on pre-application and encouraging developers to increase community engagement at this stage. iii) Preparing for locally set fees to ensure that fees are fair and proportionate to the nature of the applications being assessed.

RESEARCH AND CONSULTATION

5. The recommendations in this report are the outcome of an eight month period of research followed by an extensive consultation period with Members. Figure 1 below illustrates the multi-faceted approach we have taken to inform the review of the Scheme of Delegation and other service improvements which will be undertaken as part of our wider programme (see Annex 5).

6. It has also been informed by using best practice guidance and support from the Planning Advisory Service (PAS) and benchmarking Kingston performance and costs against other Councils as part of the Managing Excellent Planning Services programme (MEPS) which included analysis of timesheet information for officers involved in processing planning applications (see Annex 1).

Customer complaints

Service Improvement Plan RBK Statistical Performance Data

RESEARCH

Managing Excellent Planning Advisory Planning Services Service

Informal customer and member

Figure 1: Research Undertaken October 2010 – February 2011

7. Extensive consultation has been undertaken with Members in relation to the recommendations, both in their capacity as community leaders but also as decision makers. In addition to working closely with Key Members on the DC committee the proposals have been taken to the Chairs Forum, Liberal Democrat and Conservative Group meetings for consultation.

RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE SCHEME OF DELEGATION

8. In addition to being informed by the research outlined, the revised scheme of delegation in Annexes 2 and 3 has been drawn up following Local Government Association advice. This promotes a framework where is the presumption is that all decisions are delegated except for those categories of application that are specifically exempted from the Scheme. The exemptions are set out in the recommendation 5 listed at paragraph 28.

IMPROVING THE CLARITY AND TRANSPARENCY IN DECISION MAKING

9. The structure based on exemptions will provide a clear indication for the local community where the emphasis is placed in terms of decision making. The exemptions proposed will ensure transparency of applications which due to their scale and content require a greater degree of scrutiny and public engagement.

10. The structure for the revised scheme of delegation also aims to improve understanding for the wider community on how and when decisions are to be taken by either the Neighbourhood Committee or the Development Control Committee.

11. The current balance between the Neighbourhood Committees and Development Control Committee has been explored and the recommendations proposed seek to ensure that applications of local interest including those which are on Council owned land of an appropriate scale, are considered at the relevant neighbourhood committee.

12. This would mean that recent applications of local significance which raise no strategic planning issues (such as changes of drying rooms to habitable rooms at Kingsnympton Park) would be considered by the Neighbourhood Committee instead of Development Control Committee.

13. Conversely there are applications which merit consideration of strategic issues such as affordable housing which Development Control committee provides, such as the redevelopment of 15-19 Langley Road, Surbiton for 34 new dwellings, which was determined at the Surbiton Neighbourhood Committee.

14. It should be noted that no alteration is proposed to the current process which requires neighbourhoods to be consulted on Development Control applications as this wholly accords with the emphasis the Council places on Community engagement.

15. It is therefore proposed to amend the current scheme of delegation and responsibilities to ensure that applications with a threshold of 20 dwellings (previously 100) or more than 1000 sq metres of non-residential floorspace are considered by Development Control Committee, which will generate an estimated additional 20 cases per annum. In addition, schemes on land which the Council owns or has an interest in will be considered by the Neighbourhood Committee unless the size of the proposal means that it is of a strategic nature and should therefore go to Development Control.

RECOMMENDATION 1: That major development involving the construction of more than 20 new dwellings or more than 1000 sq metres of non residential floorspace be excluded from the scheme of delegation and be determined by the Development Control Committee.

RECOMMENDATION 2: That applications, where the Council has an interest in the land be excluded from the delegation agreement and be determined by the relevant Neighbourhood Committee.

16. The recommended changes will allow service efficiencies to be achieved without prejudicing the opportunities for Members to have their views taken into account. They will also provide clarity to the local community about Members role as community leaders, which we are seeking to strengthen through formalising the call- in process.

17. This will provide members with an enhanced role in the planning application process, which is likely to be further strengthened by the proposed change to the rules of pre-determination as set out in the Localism and Decentralisation Bill to be enacted in early 2012.

18. Meanwhile Members are actively encouraged to talk to officers about planning proposals and are sent a weekly list of all planning applications received, which states the date that an application is made valid and all proposals are available for viewing online. If a Member has a particular issue they would like to clarify then the Planning team welcomes discussions and will assist members in explaining the issues or answering any queries.

19. The proposed changes will mean if a Member considers that a particular planning application should be determined by a Committee, that he/she can send in a form or e-form setting out their planning reasons for a call in and, provided it is within the call in period of 28 days this will be automatically accepted.

20. The creation of a written record is important to ensure clarity and transparency in the process. At present residents have in a number of cases advised that they are unaware of the reasons why their application has been called to committee. The revised process map attached in Annex 4 provides clarity both for Members, the local community and other customers.

RECOMMENDATION 3: Introduce a call in procedure to allow members to call in a planning application to the relevant Committee within 28 days of the application being made valid. The request must be made in writing raising valid planning reasons and be supported by another member.

INCREASE EFFICIENCIES IN SERVICE DELIVERY AND PRIORITISE RESOURCES TO FOCUS ON WHAT MATTERS TO RESIDENTS AND CUSTOMERS

21. Applications that are reported to Committee are in the majority of cases not determined within the statutory timescales i.e. 56 days, which impacts on the Council’s ability to achieve its agreed performance targets under National Indicator 157 (formerly BV109). Furthermore, as at Planning Sub-Committees held every other month, the time taken to make decisions on small scale and householder applications is disproportionate to the planning considerations and level of scrutiny which can reasonably be applied. This has in some cases led to resident and customer dissatisfaction.

22. It should also be noted that after 8 weeks the applicant has the ability to appeal against non-determination. The lack of a decision from the Council can result in a weakened case at appeal.

23. As such it has been proposed that the Neighbourhood Committee meetings and Planning Sub Committees are combined to allow more frequent consideration of planning applications. However Members have raised concerns doing the consultation stages about this due to lengthy agendas and whether this would allow sufficient time to consider other non-planning issues. They have also acknowledged that the number of planning applications may decrease as a result of the changes to the scheme of delegation.

24. It is therefore recommended that the other changes to the scheme of delegation are implemented and after a period of 6 months a review of the meeting arrangements is undertaken, as set out in recommendation 4.

RECOMMENDATION 4: That the decision to combine neighbourhood and planning sub committees is delegated to the Interim Head of Planning in consultation with the Chairs and Vice Chairs/Co Chairs of the four neighbourhoods, 6 months following introduction of the other recommendations to the scheme of delegation set out in this report

25. The planning service has limited resources and must operate in the most efficient way. As referred to above the scheme written in a way that requires all applications to be delegated save a number of exceptions will provide clarity and also to ensure that the appropriate priority can be given to cases due to their scale, complexity and level of community interest merit consideration by the relevant committee. The exceptions are listed as recommendation 5 below.

26. The changes proposed will also free up officer time to work with developers to increase community engagement and secure higher quality development proposals at pre-application stage. The Service Improvement Plan has been included in Annex 5 which identifies other improvements which we will be undertaking to ensure the service is operating in the most efficient way.

27. In determining planning applications, the Council currently recovers only 61% of the fees received for applications (see Annex 1). This is largely down to the high cost of applications being considered at Committee. The Government’s proposal to allow Local Authorities to set their own fees will enable 100% recovery of costs and is likely to be introduced later in 2011. We will need to ensure however that cost recovery offers value for money for residents and that higher fees are not levied for an inefficient service. The proposed changes to the scheme of delegation will be central to achieving this.

28. Whilst there is a need to provide an efficient Service, consideration has been given to ensure that this is not achieved at the cost of securing a robust and fully accountable democratic process for decision making. The recommendations proposed seek to achieve this balance.

RECOMMENDATION 5: That all applications are delegated (including screening and/or scoping opinions required under the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 1999) with the following exceptions: - applications resulting in 2 or more objections (Householder) or 3 or more objections (all other applications), from separate addresses, which raise valid planning concerns and where the Chair / Vice Chair requests that the application

- ‘major’ and ‘minor’ proposals contrary to Council’s development plan policy

(i.e. departures) and are recommended for approval

- applications submitted by the Council, an employee of the Council or a Member be excluded from the scheme of delegation. - applications in a Conservation Area where the recommendation is to approve contrary to the views of the Conservation Area Advisory Committee are excluded from the scheme of delegation.

- any application which in the view of the Head of Planning should be considered by the Committee are excluded from the scheme of delegation.

CONCLUSION

29. The package of changes outlined above will ensure that the development management service simplifies procedures, speeds up the process, minimises costs and will leave Committee Members with more time to concentrate on major and / or issues of concern to the local community. The new call-in process will increase local member’s roles as community leaders and will further position the Council in delivering the Localism agenda.

TIMESCALE

30. The current system of delegation is inefficient and results in unnecessary delays to planning decisions. This revised scheme of delegation will be implemented following the decision of Full Council in July as this report proposes changes to the Council’s Constitution.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

31. The expected reduction in the number of cases being considered at Committee will result in efficiency savings for the service.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS - None

Background papers : held by Gavin Cooper (author of the report); 020 8547 4707; [email protected]

Medium Term Service and Financial Plan Destination Kingston – Current Position 2010/11, Executive report, 29 September 2010 B8

Annex 1 Supporting Information

Number of Applications Considered at Committee

1. The existing scheme of delegation results in over 200 cases per annum being considered by a Committee. Figure 1 shows how the majority of cases considered are minor.

Figure 1: Number of Applications Considered at Committee by type

Note: Non PS2’s are discharge of conditions and non material amendments applications

Scheme of Delegation

2. Figure 2 shows the proportion of cases delegated each quarter. This shows how the overall delegation rate has remained below the 90% target.

Figure 2: Proportion of Cases Delegated 2008-2010

3. Figure 3 shows how the rate of delegation compares to 89 other authorities. It shows that the delegation rate is below the average.

Figure 3: Percentage of Applications Delegated to Officers Compared with Benchmarking Group

Benchmark

RBK position in relation to remainder of benchmarking group

Performance in terms of Speed

4. Performance of Planning Authorities is measured according to the proportion of applications determined within 8 and 13 weeks. Table 1 below shows that in the case of both minor and others (householder) applications a significant proportion, at least three quarters of all committee decisions, were over the target. The impact on NI157 is covered in the Quarterly Development Management Performance Report.

Table 1: Speed of Determination Delegated and Committee

Delegated Committee Figures for period Oct - Dec 2010 % within % over % within % over target target target target

Major 60% in 13 wks 100% 0% 88% 12%

Minor 65% in 8 wks 80% 20% 17% 83%

Other 80% in 8 wks 86% 14% 25% 75%

B10

Cost of Determining an Application

5. The Council is part of a benchmarking group that involves 89 authorities. As part of this detailed cost information was collected. This involved time recording and the submission of costs such as the building. The results of this are shown below in figures 4 to 6. These show that Kingston’s costs are not unusual compared to others.

Figure 4: Cost of Processing Delegated Cases compared with the Benchmarking Group

Benchmark

RBK position in relation to remainder of benchmarking group

Figure 5: Cost of Processing Committee Cases compared with the Benchmarking Group

Benchmark

RBK position in relation to remainder of benchmarking group

Figure 6: Cost of Processing Committee Cases compared with the Benchmarking Group

Benchmark

RBK position in relation to remainder of benchmarking group

B11

Annex 2 Delegation Scheme

Delegated powers of the Head of Planning

The Council’s constitution sets out the detailed arrangements for the allocation and discharge of the Council’s responsibilities. Many of these have been delegated to chief officers and they or their representatives are authorised to make decisions which both speed up the process and remove the need for such matters to be considered by committees. The Head of Planning has been delegated the following powers by the Development Control Committee to deal with planning and associated matters, other than where the exceptions apply.

Development Management

Specifically designated to the Head of Planning and as specified, the Group Manager and Lead Officers to exercise the following functions subject to restrictions and conditions indicated:

A. The determination of:

1. Any application for planning permission submitted under the Town and Country Planning Acts. 2. Any application for the approval of details required by a condition or legal agreement imposed on a grant of planning permission. 3. Any application to vary or remove a condition imposed on an existing grant of planning permission. 4. An application for listed building consent. 5. An application for conservation area consent. 6. An application under the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 1999 for a screening or scoping opinion or application for approval of an environmental statement. 7. An application for prior approval in relation to permitted development proposals for agricultural, forestry and telecommunications permitted development in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 as amended. 8. Any application for a Certificate of Lawfulness of existing Use or Development or Certificate of Lawfulness of Proposed Use of Development under Sections 191- 194 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended 9. Any application under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations. 10. Any application for a determination as to whether the prior approval of the authority will be required to the method of the proposed demolition and ay proposed restoration of the site. 11. Any application for approval of reserved matters. 12. Any application made to vary the terms of an existing legal agreement .

B The authority not to take enforcement action against a breach of planning control where it is considered not expedient to take formal action and where the Chair/ Vice Chair of the relevant Committee consider the matter could be delegated. B12

C To authorise and take direct action where appropriate in respect of breaches of planning control that remain unresolved following successful prosecution

D To issue a Hazardous Substances Contravention Notice under Section 24 of the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990.

EXCEPTIONS to be reported to the relevant Neighbourhood Committee

a) A minor planning application for development which is contrary to Council policy unless it is intended to refuse the application. b) Planning applications for development where there is significant local public concern (defined as two or more objections in relation to householder and three or more objections in all other cases, from separate addresses, who have objected in writing raising material planning considerations) unless it intended to refuse the application AND the Chair/ Vice Chair requests that the application be considered at Committee. c) Where a member has been submitted in writing a request within 28 days of the date an application is valid, raising material planning grounds the application should be submitted to the relevant Committee. d) Applications submitted by or on behalf of the Council or where the Council has any interest in the land. e) Applications where the recommendation is to approve contrary to the views of the Conservation Area Advisory Committee where the application falls within a Conservation Area are determined by the relevant Committee. f) Any application which in the view of the Head of Planning is in the public interest should be considered by the relevant Committee.

EXCEPTIONS to be reported to the Development Control Committee:

a) In relation to development of such classes as the Development Control Committee may from time to time determines shall be the subject of recommendations to them including major development involving the construction of more than 20 new dwellings or more than 1000 sq metres of non residential floorspace where the recommendation is to grant permission. b) A major planning application for development which is contrary to Council policy unless it is intended to refuse the application. c) Applications submitted by or on behalf of a member of the Council (or their spouse or partner) or any Council employee (or their spouse or partner). d) Any application which in the view of the Head of Planning is in the public interest should be considered by the committee. e) Where the Head of Planning considers that that an application should be refused where such a decision will result in the Council being potentially liable for a payment of compensation, save in the case of development which would have been permitted development but for an Article 4 direction. B13

Annex 3 Responsibility for Functions

Development Control Committee (Nine Members of the Council) Functions

1. The exercise of the Council’s Development Control responsibilities in respect of the following categories of planning application. Neighbourhood Committees to be formally consulted on all such applications:

a) In relation to development of such classes as the Development Control Committee may from time to time determines shall be the subject of recommendations to them including major development involving the construction of more than 20 new dwellings or more than 1000 sq metres of non residential floorspace. b) A major planning application for development which is contrary to Council policy unless it is intended to refuse the application. c) Any application which in the view of the Head of Planning is in the public interest should be considered by the committee. d) Where the Head of Planning considers that that an application should be refused where such a decision will result in the Council being made liable for a payment of compensation, save in the case of development which would have been permitted development but for an Article 4 direction.

2. The Committee may also consider and respond to consultations from external bodies or the Executive/Strategic Committees

3. The control of high hedges under Part 8 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003.

4. To receive performance monitoring information on matters within the remit of the Committee.

B14

Annex 4 Planning Application Process

Call in by Member within 28 days

If no call in

B15

Annex 5 Development Management Improvement Plan following MEPS

Subject Area Suggested action Priority Timeline Lead officer Management Locally set fees 1. Continue work developing the PAS High Jan – June 2011 GC model to scope the cost of the planning service and the basis for setting fees for planning applications

2. Consult on proposed schedule for fees High June – Sept 2011

3. Adoption and implementation of fee High October 2011 schedule

Detailed development 1. Undertake a business process High Jan- Dec 2011 NS management business improvement project to review processes planning proposal procedures from inception of idea to completion of work on site (including pre-application phase, application processing phase, and post-permission phase) to ensure double handling is kept to a minimum

2. Consider measures to improve the High Jan – Jun 2011 time taken to validate applications

3. Consider case officers printing Medium decision notices in order to avoid double handling

B16

Subject Area Suggested action Priority Timeline Lead officer 4. Implement outcomes and ensure Medium maximum use of ICT

Planning 1. Use data from MEPS and best High Jan – March 2011 GC committee/delegation practice to scope the changes Completed possible

2. Review the role of neighbourhood and High Jan – March 2011 development control committees Completed

3. Consider changes to the scheme of High Jan – March 2011 delegation for development Completed management so that a greater proportion of applications are determined under the delegation scheme and that strategic applications are considered by the neighbourhood/development control committee

4. Update the scheme of delegation so High Jan – March 2011 that it is clearer and by exception Completed

5. Revise and update the members High March – June 2011 protocol to take account of the above changes

Performance 1. Review the performance management Medium January – June 2011 NS / NL/ monitoring data collected and regularly reported Completed GC to management/committee including B17

Subject Area Suggested action Priority Timeline Lead officer appeals

2. Where targets are set locally e.g. Medium January – June 2011 targets for validation (3 working days) Completed site visits and neighbour notification these should be regularly monitored

Project management 1. Make use of planning performance Medium Ongoing NS agreements where appropriate as a means of streamlining and managing decisions on large scale schemes and the basis for setting fees for large scale major applications

2. Establish a project management Medium Ongoing approach to all proposals

3. Use the project management High Jan – March 2011 approach to ensure that the majority of Completed householder applications are determined within 35 days

4. Develop a customer charter setting out Medium June - Dec 2011 the standards of service

5. Consider setting up an accredited Medium June - Dec 2011 agent system so that applications are automatically validated

Development 1. Collate instructions/information in an Medium 2011 NS B18

Subject Area Suggested action Priority Timeline Lead officer management manual e-manual and consider ISO 900 accreditation

Case Files 1. Consider the migration to use of digital Medium 2011 NS folders as the master application file, with application plans being the only paper documents held by the case officer

2. This key change of practice should be seen as an essential step towards greater efficiency, costs reduction, and as being an integral part of the move towards flexible working

Planning policy 1. Adopt the residential design guide High June 2011 NL guidance SPD

Reports 1. Make all reports (committee and Low By the end of 2011 NS delegated) available on the website

Pre-application advice 1. In the light of work on locally set fees High March - Jun 2011 PL review the charging regime for pre- application advice

Section 106 and CIL 1. Review the scope of the current use High Jan – March 2011 PL of section 106 agreements in the Completed light of new CIL guidance

2. Develop a new policy basis for High March - Jun 2011 B19

Subject Area Suggested action Priority Timeline Lead officer section 106/CIL requirements that is agreed by members and corporately

3. Establish a corporate body to discuss Medium Ongoing both policy and practice of section 106/tariffs/CIL which also oversees implementation and monitoring and includes all key departments involved

4. Ensure reports are regularly Medium Ongoing submitted to members on the performance of section 106 agreements

Use of conditions 1. Review the standard conditions used on decision notices with a view to High January – June 2011 NL reducing the number of pre- commencement conditions used e.g. landscape conditions often used rather than incorporated in the scheme from the outset and to ensure that they are enforceable

Review Local List 1. Review requirement of existing local High June 2011 PL list. 2. Revise list to ensure that details are High July- Oct 2011 supplied as part of the application rather than be required imposing conditions.

Decision notices 1. Consider case officers printing Low 2011 NS B20

Subject Area Suggested action Priority Timeline Lead officer decision notices in order to avoid double handling

Enforcement 1. Ensure that a revised delegation High Jan – March 2011 AK scheme includes enforcement

2. Establish an enforcement policy Medium April – October 2011 which sets out the council’s priorities and adopt following consultation.

3. Adopt a process to monitor large and High June – October 2011 controversial sites during construction to ensure that the development is implemented correctly

4. Work with the Contact Centre and High June –October 2011 website team to allow increasing amount of self service for simple enforcement enquiries.