Agenda Please Contact: James Stanton 020 8547 4627/FAX 020 8547 5125 E-Mail: [email protected]

Agenda Please Contact: James Stanton 020 8547 4627/FAX 020 8547 5125 E-Mail: James.Stanton@Rbk.Kingston.Gov.Uk

For enquiries on this agenda please contact: James Stanton 020 8547 4627/FAX 020 8547 5125 e-mail: [email protected]

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

13 September 2004 AGENDA

A meeting of the SOUTH OF THE BOROUGH PLANNING SUB-COMMITTEE will be held at EVANGELICAL HALL, BROOK ROAD, OFF HOOK ROAD, SURBITON on TUESDAY 21 SEPTEMBER 2004 at 7:30 pm

Members of the Committee

Chessington North & Hook Ward Councillor Sue Baker Councillor Ian Reid Councillor Mary Reid

Chessington South Ward Councillor Patricia Bamford Councillor Martin Blakebrough Councillor Shiraz Mirza

Tolworth & Hook Rise Ward Councillor Rolson Davies Councillor Vicki Harris (Chair) Councillor Rob Lee

Date of Meetings:

Planning Sub-Committee The following meetings will take place only if there is sufficient business to warrant a separate Planning Sub-Committee, otherwise planning applications will be considered by the Neighbourhood Committee.

Wednesday 17 November 2004 - Tolworth Girls School, Fullers Way North Wednesday 15 December 2004 - Southborough School, Hook Road, Surbiton Wednesday 9 February 2005 – Moor Lane Junior School, Moor Lane, Chessington Wednesday 13 April 2005 - Tolworth Girls School, Fullers Way North

Neighbourhood Committee

Wednesday 10 November 2004 – Moor Lane Junior School, Moor Lane, Chessington Wednesday 8 December 2004 – Moor Lane Junior School, Moor Lane, Chessington Wednesday 2 February 2005 - Tolworth Girls School, Fullers Way North Wednesday 23 March 2005 - Southborough School, Hook Road, Surbiton

EMERGENCY EVACUATION ARRANGEMENTS

If the fire alarm sounds please leave the building by the nearest exit. 2

AGENDA

1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

2. MINUTES

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held 23 June 2004.

3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Members are asked to state any interests – personal or prejudicial – on items on this agenda.

4. PLANNING APPLICATIONS Appendix A

Report by the Director of Environmental Services

• 04/10155/OUT – 50, 52, 54, 56 & Gardens of 58, 60 Leatherhead Road, Chessington • 04/10202/FUL – 7-8 Ace Parade, Chessington • 04/10260/FUL – Barwell Court Farm, Leatherhead Road, Chessington • 04/10285/FUL – 3 North Parade, Chessington • 04/10284/REM – 3 North Parade, Chessington • 04/10217/FUL – 4 Durbin Road, Chessington • 04/10267/FUL – 32 West Road, Chessington

5. TOLWORTH COURT FARM FIELDS, FIELD 2006, KINGSTON Appendix B ROAD, SURBITON

Report by the Director of Environmental Services

6. URGENT ITEMS AUTHORISED BY THE CHAIR

SPEAKING ON PLANNING APPLICATIONS, TREE PRESERVATION ORDERS OR ENFORCEMENT CASES

Objectors may speak on planning applications, if they have both:

(a) previously responded to the consultation on an application, and (b) registered THREE days before the meeting to do so

Applicants and supporters must also register their wish to speak by the same deadline, however they can only be heard at the meeting if an objector has also registered. 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.

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. However as in these cases it will be the Director of Environmental Services who is recommending either Enforcement Action or making a Tree Preservation Order it will be the land/property owner and objectors/supporters who will have speaking rights. The order of speakers will therefore be adjusted to reflect this.

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. On planning applications Applicants can only register to speak if there are objectors who wish to speak.

Please contact: James Stanton 020 8547 4627/FAX 020 8547 5125 e-mail: [email protected]

Deadline for registering to speak by objectors: 10am, Friday 17 September 2004.

Time for speaking - FIVE minutes is allowed for each side on each application. This time has to be shared by however many there are on each side. If there are a large number of speakers people must decide amongst themselves on a spokesperson or some other arrangement.

The Chair of the meeting has no discretion to extend the time limit.

The order of speaking is

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

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.

APPENDIX A SOUTH OF THE BOROUGH PLANNING SUB NEIGHBOURHOOD COMMITTEE TUESDAY 21 SEPTEMBER 2004

REPORT BY DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

PLANNING APPLICATIONS

INDEX

ITEM REGISTER ADDRESS DESCRIPTION RECOMMENDATION PAGE NO NO NO

A1 04/10202 7-8 Ace Parade, Chessington Change of use of 8 Ace Parade from PERMIT A1 Bakery (Class A1) to form Restaurant (Class A3) in conjunction with 7 Ace Parade. Erection of new shop front and

associated internal alterations A2 04/10217 4 Durbin Road, Chessington, Erection of single storey side and rear REFUSE A8 KT9 1BU extension, rear dormer extension and pitched roof porch on front elevation. Conversion into one 2 bedroom flat and one 3 bedroom flat. A3 04/10260 Barwell Court Farm, Retention of two chalet bungalows. PERMIT A13 Leatherhead Road, Provision of parking for bungalows and Chessington, KT9 2LZ stables. Provision of additional garden

for existing cottage. Revised siting to that approved under Planning Permission 03/10270/FUL. Details of refuse storage, boudary treatment, surface water control measures and landscaping A4 04/10267 32 West Road, Chessington, Erection of single storey rear PERMIT A22 KT9 2NR conservatory

1042Z APPENDIX A SOUTH OF THE BOROUGH PLANNING SUB NEIGHBOURHOOD COMMITTEE TUESDAY 21 SEPTEMBER 2004

REPORT BY DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

PLANNING APPLICATIONS

INDEX

ITEM REGISTER ADDRESS DESCRIPTION RECOMMENDATION PAGE NO NO NO

A5 04/10284 3 North Parade, Chessington, Details of extract system including REFUSE AND A25 KT9 1QL ductwork and refuse storage pursuant to ENFORCEMENT Conditions 4 and 5 of Planning Permission 03/10236/FUL A6 04/10285 3 North Parade, Chessington, Retention of single storey rear extension REFUSE AND A29 KT9 1QL and wall mounted condensing unit ENFORCEMENT A7 04/10155 50, 52, 54, 56 + Gardens of 58, Erection of 10 3 bedroom houses with REFUSE A32

60, Leatherhead Road, parking and access road. Chessington, Surrey

1042Z

SOUTH OF THE BOROUGH PLANNING SUB NEIGHBOURHOOD COMMITTEE

21 SEPTEMBER 2005

REPORT BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

PLANNING APPLICATIONS

All recommendations for planning permission in this section are automatically subject to the condition limiting the duration of the permission required by Sections 91 and 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act (as amended) 1990 unless permission is to be granted for a limited period or unless there is a specific recommendation that the period for such duration be other than the period referred to in the standard condition. All background papers are incorporated into Planning Application Reports.

The policies listed are those from the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan, adopted March 1998.

Please note that the site plans attached to this document are indicative only.

______

A1 Register No: 04/10202/FUL

Address: 7-8 ACE PARADE, CHESSINGTON Ward: Tolworth and Hook Rise Description of Proposal: Change of use of 8 Ace Parade from Bakery (Class A1) to form Restaurant (Class A3) in conjunction with 7 Ace Parade. Erection of new shop front and associated internal alterations

RECOMMENDATION PERMIT

Plan Type: Full Application Date of Validation: 01/06/2004 Applicant's Plan Nos:

01 Received 17/05/2004 02B Received 17/05/2004 Site Location Plan Received 01/06/2004

Basic Information:

Development Plan: Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan (Proposed First Alteration Composite Version 2002) UDP Policies

BE11 Design of New Buildings and Extensions

- A1 - 1042Z

BE12 Layout and Amenity of Buildings and Extensions H1 Protection of Residential Amenities S3 Local Shopping Centres S8 Takeaway Food Shops, Restaurants, etc. T1 Transport Safety T20 Compliance with Car and Cycle Parking Standards

Total Site Area 80sq m Total Floor Area 80sq m Car Parking Required 8

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

Highways and Transportation There are a number of existing business that operate in the evening. There are probably some evening periods when there is insufficient parking capacity in Ace Parade but nearby side roads can provide for the parking demand.

Borough Environmental Health Officer Suggests that if planning permission is granted, conditions and informatives should be imposed relating to the control of fumes and odours from the premises, noise, storage of commercial waste, compliance with food hygiene regulations and registration of the premises.

Transport for London It is considered that the overall increase in daily traffic resulting from the development would be negligible, thus the effects on the performance of the A243 and A3 would be insignificant. No objections providing the following conditions are met; • Compliance with the parking standards as set out in the London Plan and the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan. • The footway of Hook Road or A3 is not blocked. • No skip is placed in the highway. • The applicant contacts our Steward, Mouchel Parkman in respect of any work that may impact on the operation of the highway including any scaffolding licence. (Mouchel Parkman, 3rd Floor, Kingswood House, 47-51 Sidcup Hill, Sidcup, DA14 6HJ, tel. 020 8300 0300).

Letters of objection received form occupiers of 50 and 71 Elmcroft Drive on the following grounds; • Increase traffic parking in Elmcroft Drive.

- A2 - 1042Z

• On street parking will adversely affect amenities of residents in Elmcroft Drive due to noise and disturbance at night. • Area already suffers from smells from the existing restaurants to the detriment of residential amenity. • Applicants have already sought an extension of opening hours to 2am and an entertainment licence. Concerned that they will ask for further late night opening. • Increase problems with refuse storage in the rear service road. • Adequate eating establishments in the area.

Letter of objection from applicant of restaurant application at First Floor Ace of Spades, Hook Rise North in respect of non provision of on site parking.

Previous Relevant Applications 7 Ace Parade 88/2191 Change of use from shop to restaurant Permit 22/08/89

Site

1. This application relates to a shop unit in Ace Parade which is currently used as a bakery and situated next to the Chinese restaurant at 7 Ace Parade.

2. The premises form part of a terrace of 3 storey (and 4 storey in the case of 7 Ace Parade) premises which were built as shops on the ground floor with residential maisonettes above.

3. Residential properties in Elmcroft Close and Elmcroft Drive are situated to the east and south of the Parade.

4. The site lies in the Ace of Spades Local Shopping Centre as identified on the UDP Proposals Map which also extends to the north of the Ace of Spades Roundabout. The A3 and A243 to the south of the Ace of Spades Roundabout form part of the Red Route for which Transport for London are the Highway Authority.

Proposal

5. It is proposed to use the premises as an extension to the existing restaurant at 7 Ace Parade. The submitted drawings show the provision of a new shopfront and door to match those at 7 Ace Parade. The existing restaurant was permitted in 1989. Planning permission 88/2191 does not include any restrictions on hours of use of the premises. The owners of the bakery have advised that the business is no longer viable due to competition and staff difficulties.

Considerations

6. The main issues relate to; • the principle of the change of use • parking and highways issues

- A3 - 1042Z

• impact on the residential amenities

The Principle of the Change of Use

7. The site lies in a Local Shopping Centre and the proposal complies with Policy S3 in that a Class A3 restaurant use represents an appropriate alternative use to Class A1 retail use, adequate alternative retail facilities are available and there should be no undue harm to the retail character of the area. Although the proposal will result in the loss of a bakery, it should be noted that the grocery/general store in the Parade as well as the petrol filling station opposite sell bakery products.

Parking and highways issues

8. The premises do not benefit from off-street car parking. Therefore neither the existing retail nor proposed restaurant uses can comply with the off-street parking standards contained in the London Plan or the Unitary Development Plan (Maximum standard of 1 space per 10m² in respect of Class A3 uses). On the basis of these standards the restaurant use would require a maximum of 8 spaces. However, there are designated parking spaces in the service road immediately outside the Ace Parade properties which are unrestricted between 7am and 7pm.

Impact on the residential amenities

9. Given that the proposal is an extension to an existing restaurant it is not considered that there will be any undue loss of residential amenities. The Borough Environmental Health Officer has not referred to any complaints about the operation of the existing restaurant at 7 Ace Parade and there have been few consultation responses to this application. Local residents have referred to increased parking in Elmcroft Drive. However Elmcroft Drive is an adopted highway and it would be difficult to sustain a reason for refusal on the grounds of the impact on residential amenity due to additional vehicular movement or parking in this street.

Conclusion

10. Members will recall refusing planning permission (contrary to recommendation) for the change of use of the first floor (above golf store) to A3 restaurant at Ace of Spades, Hook Rise North on 22 October 2003. However, this was a much larger proposal which required a maximum of 56 off-street parking spaces whereas only 30 off-street parking spaces were available on site in the evenings after 8.00pm. Furthermore these premises do not benefit from unrestricted parking in the immediately adjoining service road in the evenings. An appeal into this decision is to be considered at a Hearing on 5 October 2004.

11. The proposal represents an appropriate use in a Local Shopping Centre.

- A4 - 1042Z

Recommendation

Reason for Approval

The proposal represents an appropriate use in a Local Shopping Centre and there should not be any undue adverse impact on the residential or visual amenities of the area or local highway conditions. The proposal therefore would accord with Policies H1, S3, S8 and T1 of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan.

PERMIT subject to the following conditions :

1. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced within 5 years from the date of this decision.

Reason: In order to comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990. (As amended)

2 The materials and finishes of the external walls and roof of the development hereby permitted shall match in colour and texture those of the existing building, or such other materials as shall have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

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.

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

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

4. Any ventilation duct shall extend at least to eaves level.

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.

5. Refuse storage facilities including provision for commercial waste and recycling shall be provided prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted in accordance with details which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the

- A5 - 1042Z

commencement of the development, such facilities to be permanently retained at the site.

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

6. A shop window display shall be maintained at all times.

Reason: In order to maintain the continuity and interest of the shopping frontage in accordance with Policy S3 ‘Local Shopping Centres’ of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan.

7 Any broadcasting or amplifying equipment to be installed shall at no time be audible outside the curtilage of the site.

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

8. Noise produced from activities occurring within the premises at all times when it is in operation should not exceed the ambient noise levels measured at adjacent residential properties during these hours.

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

9. The rating level of the noise emitted from plant located on the premises shall be at least 5dBA lower than the existing background level at any time of operation. The noise levels shall be determined 1 metre external to any window at the nearest residential façade. The measurements and assessment shall be made according to BS.4142:1997.

Informatives

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

- A6 - 1042Z

2. The applicant shall ensure that the premises are registered with the Local Authority as a food business within 28 days prior to opening.

3. The applicant is advised to seek the services of an acoustic engineer regarding potential vibration and noise problems from ventilation duct fans, compressors or other equipment, and the provision of anti-vibration mountings, acoustic enclosures etc.

4. You are advised to contact Jane Young, Access Officer on 0208 547 5314 with regard to access to public buildings. This application concerns premises to be used for the provision of goods, facilities or services to the public, within the meaning of Part 3 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The applicant should therefore bear in mind that from October 2004 disabled people could take legal action against the applicant or any subsequent occupier of the premises if reasonable adjustments to the premises have not been made to facilitate access for disabled people.

5. Transport for London advise; • The footway of Hook Road or A3 should not be blocked. • No skip should be placed in the highway. • The applicant should contacts their Steward, Mouchel Parkman in respect of any work that may impact on the operation of the highway including any scaffolding licence. (Mouchel Parkman, 3rd Floor, Kingswood House, 47-51 Sidcup Hill, Sidcup, DA14 6HJ, tel. 020 8300 0300).

- A7 - 1042Z

South of the Borough Planning Sub Committee

Date of Meeting: 21/09/2004

______

A2 Register No: 04/10217/FUL

Address: 4 DURBIN ROAD, CHESSINGTON, KT9 1BU Ward: Chessington North and Hook Description of Proposal: Erection of single storey side and rear extension, rear dormer extension and pitched roof porch on front elevation. Conversion into one 2 bedroom flat and one 3 bedroom flat.

RECOMMENDATION REFUSE

Plan Type: Full Application Date of Validation: 19/08/2004 Applicant's Plan Nos:

001 Received 01/06/2004 002 Received 01/06/2004 003 Received 19/08/2004 O S MAP Received 01/06/2004

Basic Information:

Development Plan: Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan (Proposed First Alteration Composite Version 2002) UDP Policies

BE11 Design of New Buildings and Extensions H1 Protection of Residential Amenities H5 New Residential Development H6 Residential Density H7 Residential Conversions and Houses in Multiple Occupation RES2 Planning Conditions and Agreements RES8 Community Benefit STR2 Residential Environment T20 Compliance with Car and Cycle Parking Standards T21 New Development and On-Street Parking (Proposed Alterations 2002)

Total Site Area 298sq m Total Floor Area 171sq m Density 235 Dwellings 2 Habitable rooms 7

- A8 - 1042Z

No. of Units 2 Car Parking Required 4 Proposed 0

Consultations

Borough Valuer – Proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site which would have an adverse impact on the amenities of the remainder of the Council’s housing estate. (Proposal would also breach restrictive covenants which were imposed when the Council sold the property).

Highways and Transportation – No off street parking has been provided. Four spaces should be provided. The crossover is inadequate and would affect the street tree in Durbin Road.

Head of Housing – Proposal would be an overdevelopment of the site and would not compliment surrounding housing. Proposal would also extend right up to the boundary.

One letter of objection received from occupier of neighbouring dwelling. Letter raises objections on grounds of harm to the character of the area, lack of parking and harm to residential amenities.

Site and its Surroundings

1. The site comprises a two storey semi-detached dwelling. It is sited on the southern side of Durbin Road close to the junction with Gosbury Hill. The neighbouring properties are similar two storey semi-detached properties which all appear to be in use as single dwellinghouses. The existing use is as a three bedroom house. The property has an existing single storey rear extension, 2.5m in depth. There is a single storey outbuilding comprising W.C. store and workshop at the rear of the dwelling. There are gardens to the rear and front of the dwelling. There is no on-site parking or vehicular access to the site.

The Proposal

2. The application is for the erection of a single storey side and rear extension, rear dormer window and front porch. The accommodation will be used as a two bedroom flat (on the ground floor) and three bedroom flat (on the first floor and in the roof). Separate entrance doors will be formed in the front elevation.

3. The single storey side extension will extend up to the side boundary (2.5m in width) and will project 700m in front of the existing front elevation. It would extend 3.2m in depth at the rear, level with the proposed rear extension which would extend across the entire width of the property. The proposal will be linked to the existing outbuilding at the rear.

- A9 - 1042Z

4. The dormer window would be 4.7m in width and 2.2m in height. It would project 2.7m from the rear roof slope. It would be 2.5m from the boundary with the attached property.

5. The new porch would be formed by a pitched roof projecting 700mm from the front elevation and extending across the entire width of the property.

6. A new crossover to Durbin Road is shown.

Planning History

7. No previous planning applications have been received.

Considerations

8. The main issues to be considered are:

i) The principle of the conversion of the single dwelling to 2 self- contained units and the effect on the character and appearance of the area ii) The effect on residential amenities iii) Highways and parking iv) Community benefit

The principle of the conversion of the dwelling to 2 self-contained units and the effect on the character and appearance of the area

9. The development is considered to be out of character with the surrounding area. The surrounding properties in Durbin Road, Gosbury Hill and The Causeway all appear to be in use as single dwellinghouses and there do not appear to be any flat conversions in the surrounding area.

10. The density of development equates to 67 dwellings per hectare. It therefore exceeds the recommended density in PPG3 Housing (i.e. 30 – 50 dwellings per hectare). In terms of habitable rooms per hectare the density would equate to 235. This would exceed the recommended density identified in Policy H6 (i.e. 123-173 habitable rooms per hectare). For these reasons the proposal is considered to represent an overdevelopment of the site which would be detrimental to the established character of the area.

11. The proposal is also contrary to Policy H7. This policy seeks to restrict residential conversions to “large houses where the dwelling has more than three bedrooms and a net floorspace of more than 116 sq. m “ (based on the original floorspace and the number of bedrooms prior to any extension). The total floor area of the original building is calculated as being 94 sq.m.

12. The conversion of this three bedroom house to a two bedroom flat and a three bedroom flat would generate higher levels of noise and disturbance for the occupiers of the adjoining and neighbouring dwellings. The noise and disturbance would arise from increased numbers of visitors to the site,

- A10 - 1042Z

increased traffic movements, and potentially more occupants. These factors impact upon the character of the area which is largely defined by single family houses.

Impact on residential amenities

13. The proposed side and rear extension and front porch are not considered to detract from the amenities of the neighbouring dwellings. The side and rear extensions would be single storey and would extend 3.2m in depth beyond the existing rear elevation. There should be no undue loss of light, privacy or outlook at the adjoining dwellings.

14. The proposed dormer window, by way of its size, design and siting, is considered to represent an excessive addition to the building which would detract from the outlook of neighbouring dwellings. There is a large dormer window at the rear of 29a The Causeway (situated to the side of the site). However given that it was permitted over ten years ago (planning permission 94/0156 – 24.03.04) it is not considered to represent a justification for allowing the current proposal. The proposed rear dormer window would be visible from the rear windows of dwellings on both sides.

15. The proposed porch is not considered to detract from the residential or visual amenities of the area.

Highways and Parking

16. The application does not provide any off street parking as part of the proposal. The maximum requirement for off street parking to comply with the standards in the Proposed Alterations to the UDP is for 4 parking spaces.

17. In view of the lack of off street parking provision the proposal is considered likely to result in increased pressure for on-street parking detrimental to the residential amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings and potentially harmful to the safety and free flow of traffic in surrounding roads.

Community Benefit

18. The applicant has not yet signed a legal agreement relating to a contribution towards educational facilities in the Borough. The proposal therefore fails to make an appropriate form of community benefit and it is therefore contrary to Policies RES2 and RES8.

Conclusion

19. The conversion of this dwelling to provide two flats would detract from the character of the area, be harmful to residential amenities, result in the loss of a small family house and result in increased pressure for on-street parking detrimental to conditions on the highway. Additionally the proposed rear dormer extension would be harmful to the outlook from neighbouring

- A11 - 1042Z

dwellings. The applicant has not signed a legal agreement relating to a contribution towards educational facilities in the Borough.

REFUSE for the following reasons:-

1. The proposal would be harmful to the character of the area as it would result in the loss of a single dwelling house. It would also represent an overdevelopment of the site which would also detract from the established character of the area. It would also result in increased noise and disturbance harmful to the residential amenities of neighbouring properties. It is therefore contrary to Policies STR2, H1, H5, H6 and H7 of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan.

2. The proposed rear dormer extension, by way of its size, design and siting, would represent an excessive addition which would detract from the character of the original building and the visual amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings. It is therefore contrary to Policies H1 and BE11 of the RBK UDP.

3. The conversion of the property into two flats, by way of increased demand for on-street parking, would detract from the safety and free flow of traffic on the highway and impact upon the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. This would be contrary to Policy T21 of the Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames Unitary Development Plan (Proposed Alterations December 2002).

4. In the absence of a signed legal agreement relating to a contribution towards educational facilities in the Borough the proposal would fail to make an appropriate form of community benefit contrary to Policies RES2 and RES8 of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan.

- A12 - 1042Z

South of the Borough Planning Sub Committee

Date of Meeting: 21/09/2004

______

A3 Register No: 04/10260/FUL

Address: BARWELL COURT FARM, LEATHERHEAD ROAD, CHESSINGTON, KT9 2LZ Ward: Chessington South Description of Proposal: Retention of two chalet bungalows. Provision of parking for bungalows and stables. Provision of additional garden for existing cottage. Revised siting to that approved under Planning Permission 03/10270/FUL. Details of refuse storage, boundary treatment, surface water control measures and landscaping

RECOMMENDATION PERMIT

Plan Type: Full Application Date of Validation: 06/07/2004 Applicant's Plan Nos:

539 04 01 Received 24/06/2004 Boundary treatment Received 12/07/2004 Legal Agreement dated 01/09/2004 Received 01/09/2004

Basic Information:

Development Plan: Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan (Proposed First Alteration Composite Version 2002) UDP Policies

BE11 Design of New Buildings and Extensions BE12 Layout and Amenity of Buildings and Extensions BE9 Trees and Soft Landscaping H1 Protection of Residential Amenities H5 New Residential Development OL1 The Green Belt OL5 New Buildings in the Green Belt and Metropolitan Open Land RES3 Determination of Planning Applications RES8 Community Benefit STR7 Safeguarding and Enhancing Open Land T1 Transport Safety T20 Compliance with Car and Cycle Parking Standards

- A13 - 1042Z

Total Site Area 0.2 hectares Total Floor Area 270sq m

Consultations

Highways and Transportation No objections to revised siting.

Tree and Landscape Officer The development has already been completed. There are no tree implications but the site still requires some planting. Suggests some hedge planting (preferably native species) around the boundaries.

Borough Environmental Health Officer No objections.

Thames Water No objections.

Environment Agency No objections in principle; • The Agency notes that it is proposed to discharge surface water at the site to soakaway. The Agency’s ‘Policy and Practise for the Protection of Groundwater’ states that in sites underlain by non aquifers surface water from large car park areas may only discharge to soakaway via an interceptor. The Agency therefore advises that surface water from large car parks should be passed through a suitable type of oil/grit separator, the design of which shall be to the satisfaction of the Environment Agency. • Suggest that if there is any evidence of contamination at the site from past use, a detailed site investigation should be undertaken to assess the degree and nature of the contamination. (Details of the site investigation was approved under 03/10428 on 4/02/04 following consultation with the Environment Agency). 4

Transport for London No objections subject to the development complying with the Council’s and the London Plan’s residential parking standards.

2 letters of objections received from occupiers of Stable Cottage and Pear Tree Cottage on the following grounds; • Concerned that the houses have been built 2 storeys high instead of single storey, are too close and overlook house and garden of Stable Cottage and Pear Tree Cottage. • Barwell Court, Stable Cottage and Pear Tree Cottage did not receive notification of the new application and therefore did not have the opportunity to comment. • Development unacceptable in the Green Belt. • The houses are approximately 30ft closer and in a different location than originally approved.

- A14 - 1042Z

• Second storey window on both properties and ground floor window of one of the houses directly overlooks house and garden of Stable Cottage. Loss of privacy to garden of Stable Cottage.

(Note The objectors are comparing the development as built with the outline proposals permitted under 01/02235 as they claim they were not notified of application 03/10270. Computer records indicate that letters were sent to 47 addresses including 1 & 2 Barwell Court, Stable Cottage and Pear Tree Cottage on 28/07/03 in respect of this application.)

Previous Relevant Applications

00/02148 Erection of light industrial building (Class B1) with Refuse parking, etc. 03/10/00

01/02132 Demolition of existing industrial buildings. Erection of Refuse 4 bungalows on this and other land, provision of 30/07/01 parking for bungalows and stables, provision of additional garden for existing cottage,(outline).

01/02235 Demolition of existing industrial buildings. Erection of Permit 3 chalet bungalows on this and adjacent land, 19/07/02 provision of parking for bungalows and stables, provision of additional garden for existing cottage,(outline).

03/10270 Demolition of existing industrial buildings. Erection of Permit two chalet bungalows on this and adjacent land. 10/12/03 Provision of parking for bungalows and stables, Provision of additional garden for existing cottage.

03/10428 Details of site investigation to assess degree and Approve nature of contamination pursuant to Condition 11 of 04/02/04 03/10270

04/10039 Details of facing materials pursuant to Condition 2 of Approve 03/10270 23/03/04

04/10040 Details of refuse storage facilities and boundary Reject treatment pursuant to Conditions 3 and 4 of 03/10270 29/06/04

04/10041 Details of surface water control measures pursuant to Reject Condition 5 of 03/10270 27/05/04

04/10042 Details of levels of the houses pursuant to Condition 9 Approve of 03/10270 19/03/04

- A15 - 1042Z

Site and Surroundings

1. This application relates to an irregularly shaped site incorporating the area to the south of the existing stable block and the cottage known as The Bothy and part of the adjacent paddock which lies to the north of Barwell Court, Stable Cottage and Pear Tree Cottage . The site is accessed from Barwell Lane.

2. The site is situated in the Green Belt.

Background

3. In 2000 planning permission was refused for light industrial development to the north of the stables on the grounds that it was inappropriate in the Green Belt, failed to make adequate provision for parking, servicing and manoeuvring of large vehicles and involved intensification of use of Barwell Lane, (01/02148) whilst in 2001 under 01/02132 planning permission was refused for the erection of 4 bungalows on this and other land on the basis that the siting was inappropriate in the Green Belt, that the proposal would result in additional traffic using Barwell Lane and because no education contribution planning obligation had been signed.

4. Following consideration by Development Control Committee on 19 December 2001 and 30 January 2002, outline planning permission 01/02235 was granted on 19/07/02 for the demolition of the existing industrial buildings and the erection of 3 chalet bungalows on this and adjacent land with provision of parking for the bungalows and stables and additional garden for The Bothy. It was considered that these proposals overcame the earlier refusal as the number of units had been reduced and more of the footprint of the development overlapped that of the existing industrial buildings. This permission was granted following confirmation from the Government Office for London on 7 May 2002 that the application would not be called in by the Secretary of State as a Departure from the Unitary Development Plan and the satisfactory completion of a planning obligation.

5. On 3 September 2003 this Sub-Committee considered proposals for the erection of two chalet bungalow on the site of the Stable Yard and adjacent land, resolving to grant conditional planning permission subject to a planning obligation in relation to an education contribution, the construction of an additional speed hump in Barwell Lane and a contribution for improvements to the local public rights of way network, (03/10270). The required legal agreement was completed and planning permission issued on 10 December 2003. The £2000 contribution for improvements to the local public rights of way network has already been paid. It is understood that the works for the provision of a speed cushion are in hand.

6. The adjacent occupiers have complained that they were not notified about this application although computer records indicate that letters were sent to 1 & 2 Barwell Court, Stable Cottage and Pear Tree Cottage on 28/07/03.

- A16 - 1042Z

7. In May 2004 the Local Planning Authority received a complaint from the occupier of Stable Cottage (see consultation responses above) including the observations that the houses were closer to her property than permitted. This was investigated under E10200. From a site visit it was discovered that the development was under construction but that as set out on site the houses are in a slightly different position to those permitted under 03/10270 and that there are also variations in the positions of the site boundaries with the adjacent properties. The applicants were informed by letter of 14 June 2004 that due to these variations, the development could not be regarded as having been permitted by planning permission 03/10270, as such was unauthorised and that a breach of planning control had occurred.

8. The current planning application has been submitted to retain the development as built.

Proposal

9. This is a full planning application to seek to retain the development as built. The houses remain the same in size and form as previously permitted, albeit with the 4th bedroom on the ground floor of each house now shown as a study.

10. The applicants have explained that the houses have been built some 1.4m south of the approved position stating; “Following the removal of the extensive conifer screen, which necessitated extended foundation depths of approximately 2.5m, major electrical supply cables were uncovered in close proximity. From records provided by the statutory authority the cables were not expected to be in this location and therefore to progress the works the proposed buildings were re-sited further south. “The dwellings as built are still some 50m from the two adjacent properties and the alteration in their siting is not considered to be of such difference to cause any appreciable harm to, or loss of privacy to them.”

11. In relation to the differences in the site boundaries, they explain; “The boundaries of the site have now been accurately established…. “It had become apparent that the southern most boundary lies further north than that indicated by the Ordnance Survey plan previously submitted resulting in a smaller rear amenity area. The applicants negotiated, with the owners, an increase in plot width from 13m to 15m to compensate for this discrepancy. “The amenity space available to both dwellings is similar in area to that approved and provides rear garden lengths varying from a minimum of 13m to as much as 22-24m.”

12. The applicants are also seeking approval, as part of this application, of the following outstanding matters; • Refuse storage facilities Wheelibins are to be sited to the side of each property.

- A17 - 1042Z

• Boundary treatment and landscaping 1.8m close boarded fencing is proposed to the new garden to The Bothy, along part of the southern boundary and between the two houses for a length of 10m. Chestnut post and rail fencing 1.2m high and native hedging would be provided along the side boundaries of the two houses and along the northern and eastern boundaries of the access drive to the houses. Chestnut post and rail fencing 1.2m high would be provided between the two gardens and along the north and west boundaries of the adjacent paddock to the west. All the fencing has been installed, except that in the garden to the Bothy. In addition a section of fencing has been erected along the boundary with Stable Cottage, although this is not shown on the submitted drawing. • Surface water control measures Environment Agency confirmation that these proposals were satisfactory was received on 8 June 2004. The rejection of these details on 27/05/04 was based on previous Environment Agency advice that the submitted information was inadequate.

Considerations

13. It is considered that the principle of the development in the Green Belt has been established by the previous permissions. It was considered that residential development would be appropriate as it removed the previous industrial use and traffic. Therefore the main considerations in respect of this current application relate to; i. Impact on residential amenities ii. Trees iii. Community Benefit

Impact on residential amenities

14. It is considered that the main issues relate to the impact of the re-siting of the dwellings further to the south than permitted and thus closer to the existing houses and to the acceptability of the proposed boundary treatment on the amenities of their occupiers.

15. Clearly as permitted under 03/10270 the proposed chalet bungalows would have been closer to Stable Cottage and Pear Tree Cottage than those granted outline planning permission in 2002. However as built they are only approximately 1.4m further to the south than as permitted under 03/10270. The chalet bungalows are of limited height and all windows to habitable rooms at first floor level face away from these dwellings with only obscure glazed bathroom windows in the rear elevations facing to the south. Stable Cottage has a garden with a depth of over 20metres and the houses as built are a minimum of approximately 13m away. Therefore it is considered that even with the re-siting of the buildings there should be no undue overlooking of, loss of privacy to or adverse impact on Stable Cottage, Pear Tree Cottage or Barwell Court.

- A18 - 1042Z

16. In relation to the boundary treatment there have been verbal objections from the occupier of Barwell Court but no written correspondence has been received. He requested the provision of 1.8m close boarded fencing along the eastern boundary of the eastern most unit. This request was been declined by the applicant on the basis that such fencing would prevent views from the garden of the new houses to the adjoining paddock. He then requested that this fencing was placed along the south eastern boundary of the paddock with his property. However, this is not a boundary of the application site and the applicants have not control over it.

17. In these circumstances and given the semi-rural nature of the locality it is considered that the proposed boundary treatment is acceptable. Trees

18. No existing trees are affected by the development and native hedging planting is proposed as suggested by the Tree and Landscape Officer.

Community Benefit

19. The applicants have signed a unilateral undertaking in respect of the required education contribution. The other community benefits required in respect of the earlier proposals have either been provided or are in hand.

Conclusion

20. Although the houses are in a slightly different position than previously permitted it is not considered that this results in such an undue adverse impact on the amenities of the adjoining occupiers in Stable Cottage, Pear Tree Cottage or Barwell Court to warrant refusal of planning permission.

Recommendation

Reason for approval

The development does not significantly detract from the character of this Green Belt area or the amenities of surrounding occupiers. Accordingly the proposal complies with Policies H1 (Protection of Residential Amenities), BE11 (Design of New Buildings and Extensions) and BE12 (Layout and Amenity of Buildings and Extensions) and OL1 (The Green Belt) of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan.

PERMIT subject to the following conditions:-

1. Refuse storage facilities shall be provided prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted in accordance with details hereby permitted, such facilities to be permanently retained at the site.

Reason: To ensure the provision of refuse facilities to the satisfaction of the Council in accordance with Policies H1 (Protection of Residential Amenities), STR6 (Conserving and Enhancing the Built Environment) and MW2 (Waste

- A19 - 1042Z

and Environment) of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan.

2. The fences/walls shown on the approved drawings shall be erected on site and permanently retained.

Reason: In order to ensure the privacy and visual amenity of adjoining occupiers is retained in accordance with Policies BE11 (Design of New Buildings and Extensions), BE12 (Layout and Amenity of Buildings and Extensions), H1 (Protection of Residential Amenities) and STR6 (Conserving and Enhancing the Built Environment) of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan.

3. Details of the surfacing and layout of the parking area for horse boxes, trailers and cars within the application site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development and this area shall be provided prior to the first occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted.

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

4. The car parking accommodation shown on the approved drawing shall be provided with a hard bound dust free surface, adequately drained before the development to which it relates is occupied and thereafter it shall be kept free from obstruction at all times for use by the occupier of the development and shall not thereafter be used for any purposes other than the parking of vehicles for the occupiers of the development and visitors to it.

Reason: To ensure the provision of adequate off-street parking accommodation and to avoid the congestion of surrounding roads by parked vehicles in accordance with Policies T1 (Transport Safety) and T20 (Compliance with Car and Cycle Parking Standards) of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan.

5. Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order, 1995 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting this Order) no extensions (including porches or dormer windows) to the dwelling houses or buildings shall be erected within the curtilage.

Reason: To safeguard the privacy and amenity of adjoining occupiers, maintain adequate amenity space and safeguard the cohesive appearance of the development in accordance with Policies BE11 (Design of New Buildings and Extensions), BE12 (Layout and Amenity of Buildings and Extensions), 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.

- A20 - 1042Z

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

Reason: To ensure that these works are properly implemented and maintained and in the interest of visual amenity in accordance with Policy BE9 (Trees and Soft Landscaping) of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan.

7. No soakaways shall be constructed such that they penetrate the water table and they shall not in any event exceed 3 metres in depth below existing ground level.

Reason:To prevent pollution of ground water in accordance with Policy STR11 (Pollution Control) of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan.

8. No soakaways shall be constructed in contaminated ground.

Reason: To prevent pollution of ground water in accordance with Policy STR11 (Pollution Control) of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan.

Informatives

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

- A21 - 1042Z

South of the Borough Planning Sub Committee

Date of Meeting: 21/09/2004

______

A4 Register No: 04/10267/FUL

Address: 32 WEST ROAD, CHESSINGTON, KT9 2NR Ward: Chessington South Description of Proposal: Erection of single storey rear conservatory

RECOMMENDATION PERMIT

Plan Type: Full Application Date of Validation: 01/07/2004 Applicant's Plan Nos:

Site Location Plan Received 01/07/2004 JN DN 1 Received 01/07/2004

Basic Information:

Development Plan: Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan (Proposed First Alteration Composite Version 2002) UDP Policies

BE11 Design of New Buildings and Extensions BE12 Layout and Amenity of Buildings and Extensions H1 Protection of Residential Amenities OL1 The Green Belt OL5 New Buildings in the Green Belt and Metropolitan Open Land

Total Site Area 336sq m Total Floor Area 9.75

Consultations

No objections received.

Site and Surroundings

1. The site comprises a detached dwelling constructed in 1961 situated to the north of the garage court in West Road. The site lies in the Green Belt.

2. The property has an attached garage to its side, which was constructed at the same time as the dwelling. There are no other extensions to the property. To

- A22 - 1042Z

the front hardstanding provides off-street parking. At the rear french windows open onto a concrete pathway/patio.

Proposal

3. The proposal is for the erection of a single storey rear conservatory. The proposal would be sited on the south side of the rear elevation of the property with a width of 3.05m and a depth of 3.25m. It will have a sloping glazed roof and the frame will be of UPVC construction.

Considerations

4. The main considerations relate to the impact of the proposed extension on the open nature and character of the Green Belt and the residential amenity of the adjoining properties.

Green Belt

5. Policy OL1 ‘The Green Belt’ of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan is relevant. In respect of dwellings in the Green Belt, it states that except in special circumstances planning permission will be given only for modest extensions which do not change the scale of an existing property and where no more than 25% of the plot is developed in the form of buildings, garages and hardstandings.

6. The area of the plot is 336 sq.m (0.0336 hectares). The area that the dwelling, garage and existing hardstandings cover the site is 96 sq.m representing 28.6% of the site. The proposal would add 9.75 sq.m to the footprint of the existing dwelling. This would add 2.9% bringing the total of site coverage to 31.5% of the site area. The proposal will therefore be in excess of the limit prescribed in Policy OL1 for residential coverage in the Green Belt.

7. However given the scale, siting and design of the proposal it is not considered that there will be any undue harm caused to the character or appearance of the Green Belt. The extension will be sited next to the boundary with the garages and will be in scale with the host property and neighbouring dwellings. It will not detract from the open character of the site or the surrounding Green Belt and there will be no harm to the visual amenities of any neighbouring properties.

Residential Amenities

8. The proposed rear extension, which will be 3.25m in depth, would be contrary to the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance for Residential Extensions. This states that single storey rear extensions should not normally project more than 3m from the rear elevation of the dwelling.

9. However, given that the extension will be sited to the south of the rear elevation and be some 6 metres from the boundary with 30 West Road the neighbour’s outlook and light would not be adversely affected.

- A23 - 1042Z

Conclusion

10. The proposal will not detract from the Green Belt nor adversely affect the residential or visual amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings. It is modest in scale and therefore although contrary to policy is not considered to represent a Departure from the Approved Development Plan.

Reason for Approval

The proposal would not detract from the character or appearance of the Green Belt. The proposal would not detract from the residential or visual amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings. It would therefore comply with Policies OL1, OL5, BE11, BE12 and H1 of the Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames Unitary Development Plan.

Recommendation

PERMIT subject to the following conditions

1 The development hereby permitted shall be commenced within 5 years from the date of this decision.

Reason: In order to comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990. (As amended)

- A24 - 1042Z

South of the Borough Planning Sub Committee

Date of Meeting: 21/09/2004

______

A5 Register No: 04/10284/REM

Address: 3 NORTH PARADE, CHESSINGTON, KT9 1QL Ward: Chessington North and Hook Description of Proposal: Details of extract system including ductwork and refuse storage pursuant to Conditions 4 and 5 of Planning Permission 03/10236/FUL

RECOMMENDATION REJECT THE DETAILS

Plan Type: Approval of Reserved Matters Date of Validation: 09/07/2004 Applicant's Plan Nos:

BP12048 2A Received 09/07/2004

Basic Information:

Development Plan: Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan (Proposed First Alteration Composite Version 2002) UDP Policies

BE11 Design of New Buildings and Extensions BE12 Layout and Amenity of Buildings and Extensions BE21 Noise H1 Protection of Residential Amenities

Total Site Area 211sq m

Consultations

Borough Environmental Health Officer None of their recommendations regarding the duct have been carried out and the original unsatisfactory duct has now been installed. There is a concern that this unit would give rise to nuisance from fumes and odours. In addition the duct and other equipment at the rear of the premises are very noisy and clearly audible from some distance.

One letter of objection was received form an occupier of Sopwith Avenue expressing the following concerns:

• Noise • Smell

- A25 - 1042Z

Site and Surroundings

1. The site is located at the southern end of North Parade in a Local Shopping Centre. The premises are currently being used as Café and Restaurant.

2. Above the parade of shops are maisonettes. To the rear the property backs onto Sopwith Avenue where there are further residential flats.

Relevant History

3. 29859 Erection of a single storey rear Permitted extension 04.07.1985

03/10236/FUL Change of use from retail shop (A1) Refused to restaurant and take-away (A3) 27.08.2003 Appeal Allowed 19.04.2004

Background

4. Following a complaint form the member of the public on 4th May 2004 two enforcement cases were opened. These related to the breach of Conditions 4 and 5 of planning permission 03/10236/FUL concerning refuge storage facilities and extraction system. On 6th May 2004 three further enforcement cases were opened. The first concerned the newly erected shop front, the second an installed fascia sign and the third the erection of a condenser unit at the rear of the premises.

Proposal

5. This is a reserved matters application relating to details of an extract system including ductwork and refuse storage pursuant to Conditions 4 and 5 of Planning Permission 03/10236/FUL. The extract system and ductwork have already been installed at the rear of the premises. With regard to details of refuse storage facilities the applicant proposed to provide two lockable euro bins at the rear of the premises to be collected and emptied twice weekly, but no location has been indicated.

Considerations

6. The main considerations relate to the impact that the extract duct has on the residential and visual amenities of the area.

7. The Borough Environmental Health Officer advises that this unit currently gives rise to nuisance from fumes, odours and noise. The noise is clearly audible some distance away. It is therefore considered that the installation of this equipment is a source of nuisance, which causes annoyance and discomfort to local residents and also detracts form the local environment.

- A26 - 1042Z

8. It is also considered that the size of the recently installed extractor duct results in visual clutter. The duct can clearly be seen from the maisonettes above the parade of shops and also from Sopwith Avenue. Its shiny silver appearance results in a feature that is out of character with the local area and detrimental to the amenities of local residents and the visual amenities of the area.

10. The details submitted concerning refuse storage are inadequate to enable the discharge of Condition 5 of planning permission 03/10236/FUL.

Conclusion

11. The extraction system and duct are a source of nuisance and are visually intrusive to local residents and are therefore detrimental to the local environment.

12. Insufficient information has been submitted to enable the discharge of Condition 5 of planning permission 03/10236/FUL.

Recommendation

I. REFUSE for the following reasons;

1. The extraction system and ductwork is an incongruous feature that results in visual clutter and is a source of nuisance due to fumes, odours and noise to the detriment of residential amenities and visual amenities of the local environment. The development is therefore contrary to Policies H1, BE11, BE12 and BE21 of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan.

2. Insufficient information has been submitted to enable the discharge of condition 5 of planning permission 03/10236/FUL, contrary to Policies BE11 and BE12 of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan.

II. The Director of Environmental Services and the Head of Legal Services be authorised to issue Enforcement Notice(s) under S.172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), be authorised to withdraw and to vary such Notice(s) under S.173A; and in the event of non-compliance, to take legal action(s) under S.179 or S.178 and/or direct action under S178 of the Act in respect of the breach of planning control.

The Suggested Form of the Enforcement Notice:

Alleging;

Without the approval of details pursuant to Condition 4 of planning permission 03/10236/FUL the installation of extraction system and ductwork at 3 North Parade.

Requiring, within 1 calendar month of the notice taking effect:

- A27 - 1042Z

i) The permanent removal of the existing extraction system and ductwork from the site and its replacement with equipment to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority within 3 calendar months.

ii) Making good of all resulting surfaces in matching materials and finishes.

For the following reason:

The extraction system and ductwork is an incongruous feature that results in visual clutter and is a source of nuisance due to fumes, odours and noise to the detriment of residential amenities and visual amenities of the local environment. The development is therefore contrary to Policies H1, BE11, BE12 and BE21 of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan.

- A28 - 1042Z

South of the Borough Planning Sub Committee

Date of Meeting: 21/09/2004

______

A6 Register No: 04/10285/FUL

Address: 3 NORTH PARADE, CHESSINGTON, KT9 1QL Ward: Chessington North and Hook Description of Proposal: Retention of single storey rear extension and wall mounted condensing unit

RECOMMENDATION REFUSE

Plan Type: Full Application Date of Validation: 09/07/2004 Applicant's Plan Nos:

Photo Received 09/07/2004 Comfort Brochure Received 09/07/2004 Site Location Plan Received 09/07/2004 BP12048 1 Received 09/07/2004 BP12048 2A Received 09/07/2004

Basic Information:

Development Plan: Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan (Proposed First Alteration Composite Version 2002) UDP Policies

BE11 Design of New Buildings and Extensions BE12 Layout and Amenity of Buildings and Extensions BE21 Noise H1 Protection of Residential Amenities

Total Site Area 211sq m

Consultations

Borough Environmental Health Officer The condenser unit at the rear of the premises is very noisy and is clearly audible from some distance.

One letter of objection was received form an occupier of Sopwith Avenue expressing the following concerns:

• Noise • Smell

- A29 - 1042Z

Site and Surroundings

1. The site is located at the southern end of North Parade in a Local Shopping Centre. The premises are currently being used as Café and Restaurant.

2. Above the parade of shops are maisonettes. To the rear the property backs onto Sopwith Avenue where there are further residential flats.

Relevant History

3. 29859 Erection of a single storey rear Permitted extension 04.07.1985

03/10236/FUL Change of use from retail shop Refused (A1) to restaurant and take-away 27.08.2003 (A3) Appeal Allowed 19.04.2004

Background

Proposal

5. This application proposes the retention of a single storey extension and a wall mounted condensing unit at the rear of the premises.

Considerations

6. The main considerations relate to the impact that the rear extension and condensing unit have on the residential and visual amenities of the area.

7. The Borough Environmental Health Officer advises that this condensing unit gives rise to nuisance, as it is clearly audible from some distance away. It is therefore considered that the installation of this unit is a source of nuisance, which causes annoyance and discomfort to local residents and also detracts from the local environment.

8. The retention of the single storey rear extension is considered to be acceptable. The extension is built along the boundary with 5 North Parade, but hidden from view by a large extension at this property. The extension is sited 2.8m from the boundary with 1 North Parade. The size, siting and scale of the extension results in development that is unobtrusive and in keeping with

- A30 - 1042Z

the general character of the rear of North Parade without causing a detrimental impact upon the neighbour’s amenity, privacy or lighting.

Conclusion

9. The wall mounted condensing unit is a source of nuisance, which is out of keeping with the surrounding area and to the detriment of local residential amenities.

10. The rear extension is considered to be acceptable development, which causes no undue harm to the visual or residential amenities of the local environment. However, it is not possible to issue a split decision on a planning application.

Recommendation

I. REFUSE for the following reasons;

The wall mounted condensing unit is a source of nuisance due to the noise generated, which is detrimental to local residential amenities. The development is therefore contrary to Policies H1, BE11, BE12 and BE21 of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan.

The Suggested Form of the Enforcement Notice:

Alleging;

The installation of a wall mounted condensing unit at the rear of 3 North Parade without planning permission.

Requiring, within 1 calendar month of the notice taking effect:

iii) The permanent removal of the wall mounted condensing unit from the site. iv) Making good of all resulting surfaces in matching materials and finishes.

For the following reason:

- A31 - 1042Z

South of The Borough Planning Sub-Committee

Date of Meeting: 21/09/04

______

A7 Register No: 04/10155/OUT

Address: 50, 52, 54, 56 + GARDENS OF 58, 60, LEATHERHEAD ROAD, CHESSINGTON, SURREY Ward: Chessington South Description of Proposal: Erection of 10 3 bedroom houses with parking and access road.

RECOMMENDATION REFUSE OUTLINE

Plan Type: Outline Application Date of Validation: 11/06/04 Applicant's Plan Nos: 001A Received 12/07/04 Site Location Plan Received 07/04/04 Tree Survey Received 11/06/04

Basic Information: Development Plan: Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan (Proposed First Alteration Composite Version 2002) UDP Policies BE9 Trees and Soft Landscaping BE11 Design of New Buildings and Extensions BE12 Layout and Amenity of Buildings and Extensions H1 Protection of Residential Amenities H5 New Residential Development H6 Residential Density H9 Low Cost and Affordable Housing RES3 Determination of Planning Applications RES8 Community Benefit STR2 Residential Environment STR6 Conserving and Enhancing the Built Environment T1 Transport Safety T14 Pedestrian Network T20 Compliance with Car and Cycle Parking Standards T21 New Development and On-Street Parking Total Site Area 0.267 hr Total Floor Area 940 sq m Density 188 hrh (76 hra) Dwellings 10 Habitable rooms 50 Car Parking

- A32 - 1042Z

Required 20 Proposed 20 Consultations Highways and Transportation Access Issues Appropriate visibility splays should be provided as specified by TfL. An entry treatment should be provided at the access, as specified by TfL. The access width should be 5.5 m for the first 10 metres. Due to the nature of the local highway network there isn’t any on street parking near the application site, therefore parking will occur in the access road. The access road beyond the 10 metre point needs to be designed to control and manage the overspill parking that will occur.

Parking Issues Parking spaces 1 and 2 should be located 10 metres back from the main carriageway of Leatherhead Road. To encourage residents of properties 1 and 2 to use the parking at the rear, the final design should include a back gate and a footway from the property to these spaces. Although the parking is unassigned residents of units 9 and 10 may find it difficult to find parking near their homes. Parking spaces 10 and 11 maybe difficult to exit from especially if the rest of the spaces are in use.

General Issues The road should be built to adoptable standards. The applicant should clarify whether adoption of the access road is to be sought. Street lighting should be provided. Levels and highway drainage details should be provided. There should not be any run off from the plots onto the adjacent highway. Also the level design should consider land drainage issues along the rear boundary with the properties on Sussex Gardens and ensure that run –off is not increased. Redundant crossovers should be removed at the applicant expense.

Community Benefits Possible community benefit are a contribution to improvements to the land drainage network at the rear of the site, reconstruction of the footway across the frontage of the development, upgrading of the street lighting in the vicinity of the development to current standards and there maybe an opportunity to introduce a grass verge similar to that nearby in Leatherhead Road.

Tree and Landscape Officer • None of the trees on the site are of a quality and visual amenity to warrant a Tree Preservation Order or citing them as a reason for refusal. • Any permission should be subject to a condition requiring tree protection for the oaks in adjoining gardens.

Access Officer It should be noted that Part M of the Building Regulations 2000 applies to this residential development. The objective is to ensure that disabled people can visit the principal storey, normally the ground floor, of the premises, to use the habitable

- A33 - 1042Z

rooms and a room containing a WC. The Approved Document should be consulted for detailed design guidance.

Waste Management No arrangements made for refuse storage and collection.

Transport for London No objections providing the proposed access is designed in accordance with current DfT standards and DMRB Volume 6 Section 2 TD 41/95 Layout 3 – simple layout and the following conditions are met; 1. Parking provisions are in accordance with the London Plan and Kingston’s’ residential parking standards. 2. That no part of the development proposal that this planning application relates to, shall be occupied until access arrangements have been provided in accordance with detailed design drawings to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council and Transport for London. Such drawings to show consideration and adherence to Kingston’s visibility standards and guidelines for access road. 3. That no part of the development proposal that this planning application relates to, shall be occupied until parking (and swept path assessments), have been provided in accordance with detailed design drawings to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council and Transport for London. Such drawings to show means of access, size, siting, surface treatment and method of demarcation of parking on site and the spaces so laid out shall at no time be used other than by the occupiers/visitors to the premises and for no other purpose. 4. The developer will enter into an off-site highways works agreement with Transport for London for the provision of the site access and any ancillary works (i.e. relocation of any street furniture, road markings, street lighting, etc.) that may be required. The conditions are required to ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the free flow of traffic, the conditions of general safety along the neighbouring highway or the amenities of the area.

Thames Water

Sewerage

Thames Water would recommend that Petrol/Oil interceptors to be fitted in all car maintenance/parking/washing facilities. Failure to enforce the effective use of Petrol/Oil interceptors could result in oil-polluted discharges entering local watercourse.

Planning Condition

The ability of the local sewers to dispose of foul and surface water for this development will need to be determined. If investigations find that insufficient capacity is available, Thames Water will provide the additional capacity as soon as is practicable. To ensure Thames Water has sufficient lead-in time to provide such additional services we would recommend the following condition to be imposed:-

- A34 - 1042Z

Development shall not commence until details of on site drainage works have been submitted to, and approved by, the local planning authority in consultation with the sewerage undertaker. No works which result in the discharge of foul or surface water from the site shall be commenced until the onsite drainage works referred to above have been completed.

Reason: To ensure that the foul and/or surface water discharge from the site shall not be prejudicial to the existing sewerage system.

In the case of necessary off-site drainage works, outside of the application area, a Section 106 agreement would be recommended for the development. Thames Water would then recommend the following clause be included:- Not to commence the Development or any part thereof unless and until:-

a) details of off site foul and surface water drainage have been approved in writing by the planning authority, in consultation with the sewerage undertaken and;

b) arrangements have been made to the satisfaction of the planning authority, in consultation with the sewerage undertaker for the provision of adequate foul and surface water drainage for the whole of the development. Such drainage should be secured where appropriate by means of a public sewer requisition pursuant to Sections 98 to 101 of the Water Industry Act 1991.

With regard to the planning application, Thames Water would require phasing in accordance with PPG3, 12 and 23 to ensure suitable sewerage infrastructure is in place to serve the new development. To ensure Thames Water has sufficient lead-in time to provide such additional services we would like the following phasing to be imposed in either a planning condition or section 106 agreement.

Foul Drainage

Increased flow from the development may lead to sewerage flooding. Impact studies of the existing infrastructure will be required in order to determine the magnitude of any new additional capacity required in the system and a suitable connection point. The developer will be required to fund this. Early contact with Thames Water is recommended.

Informative

Surface Water Drainage

With regard to surface water drainage it is the responsibility of a developer to make proper provision for drainage to ground, water course or surface water sewer. It must not be allowed to drain to the foul sewer as this is the major contributor to sewer flooding. Thames Water recognises the environmental and economic benefits of surface water source control, and encourages it appropriate application to the overall benefit of our customers.

- A35 - 1042Z

Hence, in the disposal of surface water, Thames Water will recommend that the Applicant:-

a) looks to ensure that new connections to the public sewerage system do not pose an unacceptable threat of surcharge, flooding or pollution;

b) checks that the proposals are in line with advice from DEFRA, which encourages wherever practicable, disposal ‘on site’ without recourse to the public sewerage system; form example in the form of soakaways or infiltration areas on free draining soils;

c) looks ensure the separation of foul and surface water sewerage on all new developments.

Where disposal of surface water is other than to a public sewer, the Applicant should ensure that approval for the discharge has been obtained from the appropriate authorities.

With regard to surface water, it is recommended that the Applicant should ensure that storm flows are attenuated or regulated into the receiving network e.g. through On/Off site storage.

Letters of objections received from occupiers of 29, 31, 33, 35, 37, 41, 43 Sussex Gardens, 69 Leatherhead Road on the following grounds; • Too close to Sussex Gardens properties resulting in overlooking and overshadowing of, loss of sunlight, privacy, outlook and security to residents as well as increased noise and disturbance. • Removing mature gardens and replacing them with 7 extra houses will not be good for the local environment and wildlife. • Overdevelopment, backland development out of keeping in the area. • Exacerbate drainage problems in the area. Plans do not show drainage ditch along the boundary of the site with the Sussex Gardens properties. (Both Thames Water and the Environment Agency have been consulted.) • Previous proposals (in the 1970s and later) for development at the rear of the Leatherhead Road properties were rejected. • Overdevelopment of area with no additional provision for school places, medical facilities, community facilities etc. • Increase in traffic on Leatherhead Road to the detriment of amenity and highway safety. • Inadequate parking provision. • Unacceptable environmental impact on neighbours due to loss of trees. • Unnecessary demolition of houses on the frontage of the site.

Proprietor of café at 50 Leatherhead Road objects for same reasons as previously (he would lose his business and in relocating may encounter difficulties obtaining planning permission and may also lose customers.) He also refers to his refusal of advertisement consent for the sigh above his café and inadequate school and hospital places in the area.

- A36 - 1042Z

Letters of support from occupier of 46 Leatherhead Road but requires the developer to erect a 6 foot wall or close boarded fence on the common boundary.

Letters of support from occupiers of 38 Leatherhead Road as it would make the road more residential and stop the parking of lorries.

Previous Relevant Applications

01/02044 Erection of 5 x 3 bedroom houses Refuse and 6 x 4 bedroom houses with 11/07/01 garages, parking and new access Appeal withdrawn road

Site 1. This application relates to the sites of 50-56 and the rear gardens of 58 & 60 Leatherhead Road. 50 Leatherhead Road takes the form of a long established single storey café. 52-54 and 58-60 Leatherhead Road are two storey semi-detached houses whilst 56 Leatherhead Road is a bungalow. A vehicular access to the south of the bungalow leads to an L shaped garage block of 8 garages which immediately abut the rear boundary of 35-39 Sussex Gardens.

2. There is an existing pedestrian crossing outside 56 Leatherhead Road. Transport for London is the Highway Authority for the A243.

3. The surrounding area is predominately residential in character with the except of the site occupied by Fleetwood Fengate to the south. To the rear of the site there are terraced houses in Sussex Gardens with garden depths of approximately 20m. The ground slopes down from Leatherhead Road towards the Sussex Gardens properties.

Planning History

4. In 2001 a full planning application for the erection of 11 houses on the sites of 50-60 Leatherhead Road was refused planning permission, (Ref. 01/02044). Reasons for refusal related to the principle and form of the proposed development, its impact on residential and visual amenity, unsatisfactory vehicular and pedestrian access, loss of a tree and lack of education contribution. A subsequent appeal into this decision was later withdrawn.

5. Planning applications for backland development, (9 houses), at 72 and land to the rear of 68-76 Leatherhead Road to the south of Fleetwood Fengate were refused planning permission on 30 March 2000 and dismissed on Appeal on 4 August 2000, (00/02022 and 00/02023). Similarly planning permission for backland development at 93 and land r/o 71-93 Leatherhead Road has been refused and dismissed on Appeal.

- A37 - 1042Z

Proposal

6. This is an outline planning application with siting and means of access to be determined at this stage. The submitted drawings have been revised to incorporate details of the existing pedestrian crossing and to remove any conflict between this and the proposed vehicular access.

7. The café and houses at 52, 54 and 56 Leatherhead Road would be demolished. A new access road would be formed along the northern boundary of the site with 46 Leatherhead Road. A detached and two semi- detached houses would be situated along the Leatherhead Road frontage of the site on the same building line as 58 & 60 Leatherhead Road. A pair of semi-detached houses and a terrace of 5 houses would be sited at the rear of the site. These houses would be sited a minimum of 10m from the rear boundaries with the Sussex Gardens houses. A total of 20 parking spaces are shown accessed off the proposed cul de sac.

Considerations

8. The main considerations relate to ; • The principle of the development • The density and form of the development • Access and parking • Impact on residential amenities • Impact on Trees • Community Benefit

Government Advice on Residential Development

9. The Government issued revised PPG3 'Housing' in March 2000. One of the objectives of this guidance is to ensure new housing development and residential environments are well designed and make a significant contribution to promoting urban renaissance and improving the quality of life.

10. PPG3 advises that the Government is committed to promoting more sustainable patterns of development. Means of achieving this include making more efficient use of land by maximising the re-use of previously developed land, etc. Local Planning Authorities should avoid the inefficient use of land, promoting densities of between 30 and 50 dwelling per hectare net. The Government also seeks a reduction in parking with no more than 1.5 off-street car parking spaces per dwelling.

11. This advice has been reinforced in the publication of Circular 01/02: the Town and Country Planning (Residential Density) (London and South East England). This states that Local Planning Authority should avoid housing development of less than 30 dwellings per net hectare, encouraging developments of between 30 and 50 dwellings per net hectare and seek greater intensity of development at places with good public transport accessibility.

- A38 - 1042Z

12. Annex C to PPG3 provides a definition of ‘previously-developed land’. Whilst this includes sites occupied by a permanent structure and covers all the land within the curtilage of the site, it is stated that ‘this does not mean that the whole area of the curtilage should therefore be redeveloped.’

The principle of the development

13. The Council's policies in respect of new residential development in the proposed revised alterations to the Unitary Development Plan, December 2002, require that the most efficient use is made of urban land without damaging the character and amenity of established residential areas and that new development should be consistent with neighbourhood character. The text to Policies H5 and H6 notes that a particular feature of the Borough is the substantial residential areas that have been developed at relatively low densities resulting in suburbs of family houses set in spacious gardens. However, this character is being eroded through the pressure for development of infill and backland sites, sub-division of plots and the replacement of existing dwellings with higher density development.

14. The application site is in the midst of a residential area. However, in this case the development includes backland development with a consequent impact on the character and appearance of this residential area and on the residential amenities of the dwellings to the rear in Sussex Gardens. In relation to the guidance contained in PPG3 it is considered that the form of backland development these proposals promote would fail to respect and enhance local character. Planning applications for backland development on similar sites in Leatherhead Road were refused and dismissed on appeal at 68-76 Leatherhead Road and 71-93 Leatherhead Road in 2000 -2002.

15. PPG3 places importance on local planning authorities developing a shared vision with their local communities of the types of residential environments they wish to see in their area. Clearly the consultation responses indicate that the local community does not wish to see this type of development in this area.

16. The proposals would also set a precedent for future backland development on this side of Leatherhead Road where there are a number of similarly long sites.

The density and the form of the development

17. Policy H5 of the Unitary Development Plan confirms “proposals for residential development should also respect the established character in terms of the prevailing density of the locality”. The prevailing density over much of the borough is considered to be between 123-173 habitable rooms (24-37 units) per net residential hectare. PPG3 promotes densities of between 30 and 50 dwelling per hectare net.

18. On the basis of a total of 50 habitable rooms, it is estimated that the development will give rise to a density of approximately 188 hrh (76 hra) or 38

- A39 - 1042Z

dwellings per hectare, (on the basis of a site area of 0.267ha given by the applicant on the application form). This meets the guidance given in PPG3 and is also similar to the density of the Sussex Gardens houses to the rear, albeit including the estate road. However, the development would obviously give rise to a far higher density than the existing houses in Leatherhead Road which benefit from the long gardens.

19. The backland aspects of the tiered development, the terrace of 5 houses and the smaller gardens, which all of the proposed houses would have, would not be in keeping with existing development in the vicinity which is characterised by 2 storey semi-detached or terraced houses (in groups of 4) in relatively large gardens.

Access and parking

20. Transport for London do not have objections to the principle of the development. However, they do expect the proposals to meet Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames’ standards. The proposals are deficient in respect of the adequacy of the access road into the site.

21. Transport for London also have no objections providing parking provisions are in accordance with the London Plan and Kingston’s’ residential parking standards. The standards given in the London Plan are a maximum of 2 – 1.5 spaces per detached and semi-detached houses and 1.5 – 1 spaces per terraced house. The Council’s maximum car parking standard for 3 bedroom dwellings served by communal parking is 2 spaces at least 1 of which should be unassigned. Application of the London Plan parking standards would require a maximum of 18 spaces and of this Council’s a maximum of 20 spaces. Although 20 parking spaces are proposed, 4 of these would be difficult to use, (see Highways and Transportation observations). Given the lack of opportunity for on street parking in the vicinity, it is considered that the development should include at least 18 useable off street parking spaces to meet the London Plan’s maximum standard.

Impact on residential amenities

22. The occupiers of adjoining residential properties in Sussex Gardens currently look out onto garden areas with the exception of the garage court. This appears either to be not in use or with a very low level of usage. There will be a loss of privacy, outlook and security to residents in Sussex Gardens to the rear who will also suffer increased noise and disturbance through the development.

Impact on Trees

23. The Tree and Landscape Officer has no objections to the proposals which involve the loss of trees on the application site which have little visual amenity value.

- A40 - 1042Z

Community Benefit

24. The applicants have not indicated whether they would be prepared to make a contribution towards education provision in the Borough as required in accordance with Policy RES8 ‘Community Benefit’ and the decision of Policy & Resources Committee on 2 April 1998.

Conclusion

25. It is considered that the proposals represent an unacceptable form of backland development which is contrary to this Council’s planning policies as well as being contrary to advice given in revised PPG3.

Recommendation

REFUSE for the following reasons;

1. The proposals would result in undesirable backland development which would adversely affect the character and appearance of the adjoining established residential area, thereby failing to respect and enhance local character and which would result in a loss of privacy, outlook and security for adjoining residents as well as increased noise and disturbance. The proposals would therefore be contrary to Policies H1, H5, BE11, BE12, RES3 and STR2 of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan and advice contained in PPG3.

2. The proposals fail to provide satisfactory vehicular access to the detriment of pedestrian and highway safety contrary to Policies STR19, T1, T14 and RES3 and advice contained in PPG3.

3. Without the required education contribution, the proposed development would be contrary to Policy RES8 of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan.

- A41 - 1042Z

APPENDIX B

SOUTH OF THE BOROUGH PLANNING SUB-COMMITTEE

21 SEPTEMBER 2004

TOLWORTH COURT FARM FIELDS, FIELD 2006, KINGSTON ROAD, SURBITON

REPORT BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

SUMMARY

This report seeks the views of South of the Borough Neighbourhood Committee on planning application 04/10262 for the formation of a wetland wildlife habitat at Tolworth Court Farm Fields by Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames Landscape and Arboricultural Section prior to consideration of the application by Development Control Committee.

RECOMMENDATION

The Sub-Committee’s observations are requested and will be reported to Development Control Committee when they consider the planning application.

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION

To enable the Development Control Committee to have the Sub-Committee’s observations when they consider the planning application.

1. Introduction 1.1 This application falls to be determined by Development Control Committee. This report represents consultation with South of the Borough Neighbourhood Committee prior to future consideration of the application by Development Control Committee.

2. Site 2.1 The site comprises a wet grassland meadow within Tolworth Court Farm which is an area of former farmland, some 50 hectares in area, located on the western side of Kingston Road, south of Jubilee Way. The site itself measures some 10 hectares and is located in the south east corner of the farm close to the junction with Worcester Park Road. There are some hedges and trees at the edges of the field.

2.2 The site is designated Metropolitan Open Land. It is also a Site of Nature Conservation Importance and an Area of Archaeological Significance. Tolworth Court Farm forms Proposal Site 44 in the Unitary Development Plan. The appropriate use is given as Open Recreation. The text for Proposal Site 44 states “Important part of Hogsmill Valley Metropolitan Open Land to be used and managed to maintain open character and nature conservation, and benefit community, e.g. riverside walk, nature trails, nature reserves (part of area is designated as site of nature conservation importance), open recreation.”

3. Proposal 3.1 The proposal is for the creation of a series of interconnecting shallow pools (no deeper than 70cm). The pools will be sited in the eastern corner of the site some 20m B2

from the boundary with Kingston Road and 20m from the footpath to the south of the site. A total length of 42m is indicated and the width will be up to 10m.

3.2 The excavated soil will be relocated on the site to soften the profile of the existing bund adjacent to Kingston Road and to correct local depressions in the existing footpath and around manhole covers.

4. Consultation 4.1 At the time of drafting the following consultation responses have been received;

4.2 Thames Water – No objections. There is a public trunk foul sewer which crosses the site. No building will be permitted within 3 metres of sewers without Thames Water’s approval. Contact details given for obtaining a “building over“ approval.

Greater London Authority – Support the proposal.

English Heritage – Recommend a condition relating to submission of a programme of archaeological works should planning permission be granted. Informative also recommended regarding archaeological works to comply with English Heritage guidelines.

5. Issues 5.1 The main issues in this case relate to the principle of the development, the impact on nature conservation and archeological interests.

The Principle of the Development

5.2 The proposal would be consistent with Policy OL4 which seeks to ensure that any new development on Metropolitan Open Land is of an open and rural nature. It would also represent an appropriate use as identified for the Proposal Site as a whole.

The Impact on Nature Conservation

5.3 The creation of a series of interconnecting shallow pools will increase the habitat diversity by re-establishing wetter conditions. The shape and depth of the pools are designed to encourage aquatic plants, wading birds, inverterbrates, especially dragonflies and amphibians. The proposal is in line with the Kingston Biodiversity Action Plan and ecological enhancement targets in the Habitat Action Plan for Open Standing Water. The proposal would enhance the ecological balance of this Site of Nature Conservation Importance in line with Policy OL11.

Archaeological Considerations

5.4 English Heritage is satisfied that the depth of the pools will not produce any archaeological artefacts of great interest. However a condition requiring the submission of a watching brief, in accordance with English Heritage requirements, could be attached.

6 RECOMMENDATION

6.1 Members’ observations are requested and will be reported to Development Control Committee when they consider the planning application.