KINGSTON TOWN PLANNING SUB-COMMITTEE

4 JULY 2012

PLANNING CONSULTATION (11/12131/FUL): RAILWAY WHARF, DOWN HALL ROAD,

REPORT BY THE INTERIM HEAD OF PLANNING

SUMMARY

1. This report seeks the Sub-Committee's views on application 11/12131/FUL for the permanent residential moorings for two boats prior to consideration of the application by the Development Control Committee.

2. This application was presented to the Kingston Town Planning Sub Committee on the 25 th May 2011 and was subsequently approved by the Development Control Committee on the 9 th June 2011. The decision was challenged by means of Judicial Review on the basis of a procedural matter, which was upheld, resulting in the decision on the planning application being quashed and leading to a requirement for the planning application to be reconsidered.

3. The application is still under consideration and although the period set aside for consultation responses has expired, some may still be received. Further information will be circulated to the Sub-Committee following an assessment upon the receipt of any further consultation responses. The proposal raises a number of considerations which are set out below in the main body of the report.

RECOMMENDATION

It is RECOMMENDED that the Sub-Committee express its views on the application so that the Development Control Committee can consider them when it determines this planning application.

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION

To enable the Neighbourhood’s views to be considered

SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

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

2. Immediately to the north of the site is the Barge Dock, currently occupied by the Richmond Venturer vessel. To the north is also the entrance to Gardens and to the east is the current redevelopment of the former Power Station site which will contain 370 residential units and a hotel.

PROPOSAL

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

Planning History

4. Relevant planning history relating to the site and which is a material consideration in the determination of the subject of the application concerns: (a) 06/12375/FUL (Approved) - Change of use to temporary residential moorings for a period of 1 year for 2 houseboats; installation of waste tank (b) 08/12582/FUL (Refused) - Change of use to permanent residential moorings for two boats (c) Application 08/12582/FUL was subsequently appealed under reference APP/Z5630/A/09/2111639/NWF (Dismissed)

5. Application 06/12375/FUL was approved for the mooring of two residential boats in the subject application site for a period of 12 months at the Councils Development Control Committee on the 1 November 2006 with the decision notice subsequently issued on 23 February 2007.

6. Application 08/12582/FUL was for the change of use of the moorings for the same two residential boats on a permanent basis. This application was considered by the Councils Development Control Committee on 28 January 2009, and subsequently refused on the 26 March 2009 for the following reasons: (a) The proposed change of use to permanent long-stay residential moorings would result in an unacceptable flood risk to the residents of the house boats in conflict with the aims and objectives of Policy K24 (Flood Risk Management) of the K+20 Kingston Town Centre Action Area Plan. (b) The proposed change of use to residential moorings would result in the loss of day moorings to the detriment of river users and in conflict with Policy K13 of the K+20 Area Action Plan and Policies 4C.7 and 4C.10 of the Plan Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London Consolidated with Alterations since 2004.

7. An appeal was then made to the Planning Inspectorate and a Hearing was conducted in March 2010. On the 6 April 2010 an Independent Inspector dismissed the appeal and upheld both reasons for refusal.

8. In June 2011 The Councils Development Control Committee approved the application for the change of use, subject to the application being advertised as a departure from the development plan for 21 days and no new or substantive objections raising material planning considerations being received. The application was approved on the 14 th July 2011. Subsequently, the decision was challenged by means of a Judicial Review on the basis of a procedural matter, namely that the departure procedure undertaken was unlawful. The challenge was upheld, resulting in the decision being quashed and leading to a requirement for the planning application to be reconsidered.

CONSULTATIONS

9. Neighbour Notification – 85 notification letters have been send out to neighbouring owner/occupiers and interested parties. (a) Letters of Support – 64 letters of support have been received. Comments of support include: (i) The boats are an attractive addition to the riverside (ii) The issues of flooding are overstated and the current occupiers have the skills to deal with such an event (iii) Using the site for freight purposes will create more traffic, trouble and noise (iv) The presence of the boats provides added security to the riverside (v) The wharf should be protected for residential use (b) Letters of Objection – 3 letters of objection has been received. Concerns include: (i) The boats have been illegally moored for over four years (ii) The previous reasons for refusal upheld by the Planning Inspectorate still remain valid (iii) The claim that there is little evidence for temporary moorings is incorrect and no proof has been provided to substantiate this (iv) There is no proof that the mooring is unusable for day mooring craft. If the wharf is unsafe then this is due to the Council and the applicants from neglecting the facility (v) There is no evidence to support the statement that the moorings contribute to the character and security of the area (vi) The flood risk is unacceptable. The location of one of the craft under the bridge causes concern and permanently moored craft are tethered in such a way that they will not be able to evade the rapid rise in water levels whereas a day mooring would (vii) The application is contrary to the Councils own planning policies and should therefore be refused (c) A number of other comments were made regarding the lack of enforcement action from the Council to move the Houseboats. This is a separate matter to the consideration of this application.

10. Council Neighbourhood Traffic Engineer - The application site is in an area that has very limited on street parking provision for residents, and where on street parking is already heavily subscribed. The lack of onsite parking would result in added pressure for residents parking provision in the area, and therefore, the scheme will need to be formally designated as a ‘car capped’ scheme. If planning consent is granted a legal agreement should be entered into covering: (a) A requirement to preclude residents from applying for on street residents parking permits, visitor parking permits and for permits to park in Council owned car parks in the area; (b) A requirement to inform potential buyers or tenants of the above exclusion to publicise the lack of parking provision in sales brochures.

11. The use of the area as a wharf has been investigated in connection with the construction of United House and Riverside Heights. For both of these projects the use of the wharf for (un) loading of materials was not found to be feasible. This is because of the close proximity to the entrance to Canbury Gardens and the conflicts with pedestrians and cyclists on Thameside.

12. Inland Waterways Association – Object - On many of the country’s waterways there has been a gradual disappearance of public wharfage. This has inevitable adverse implications for boat users who on occasion need short-term moorings at night, in emergencies or for access to a nearby town centre. Likewise the local community may find access to their waterfront is restricted. Availability of public wharves is an essential element in the wider use of any waterway. It should be the case that where it is agreed that a wharf has legal public status this should in no way be rescinded and particularly in the situation where a possible range of uses is replaced by a single use. – in this case it would seem for moorings for just a small number of static residential boats. There must on occasions, either for emergency or routine purposes, be advantages for other residential boat owners in having access to a wharf at which they may, for example, more readily handle equipment into or out of their boat. This planning application should be rejected.

13. Borough Valuer – No comment .

14. Commercial Boat Operators Association (CBOA) – Object

(a) With boats permanently moored, the perception is erroneously correct that there can be as stated "little evidence of demand for such moorings at this location" (See Reasons for previous Approval). The reason being that the site is already occupied by moorers. This prevents any use by others, either pleasure craft wishing to temporarily moor, or for freight use - the unloading or loading of barges. With freight use, if it meant that lorry traffic was taken off local roads by transferring the freight to barge, then this would provide congestion relief to the highway infrastructure. (b) The argument for the benefits of the residential mooring in terms of their contribution to the security and character of the area outweigh the risk of flooding is flawed. If serious flooding occurs it could be disastrous for the permanent moorers. This is a similar situation to consideration of housing development in the flood plain of a river where the area is at risk of flooding. (c) Our barge operating members have need of wharves like this, for bringing in and out construction materials and excavation material when the need arises. If the wharf is used for permanent moorings, wharf usage by barges would not be possible (d) The Mayor's London Plan states that existing waterborne freight facilities – such as wharves - must to be safeguarded wherever possible (Policy 7.26). (e) A number of other national and regional policies have been quoted. However, these have been deleted.

15. Freight Afloat Consultants – Object

(a) There are no material changes to the application considered by the Planning Inspectorate last year. (b) Internationally, there is a strong movement towards modal change from road to water transport. Water transport uses approximately ¼ of the fuel per tonne/mile compared to road, lowers the carbon footprint by 80% while reducing congestion, noise, road accidents and deaths. (c) There is increasing demand from investors and consumers who wish to ensure that they do business with companies that are trading sustainably. With escalating fuel costs, this trend will continue to grow. However, without wharves, there can be no trade and it is self-evident that adequate wharfage will be one of the cornerstones of the expanding industry. (d) The case for preserving the wharf to facilitate the loading and unloading of barges is sufficiently strong for the application of the houseboat residents to be rejected. Moreover it is unreasonable for the wishes of two boat owners to be given priority over the needs of all the other river users for whom the mooring facility was originally intended. I had personal experience of this in 2007, when on holiday, I was unable to stop at Kingston because there was nowhere to moor. It is surely short sighted to deny Kingston the economic benefits of visitor spending.

16. The Regents Network – Object

(a) Regents Network objects to the consent given to the above application on 9th June 2011. It was not only a departure from policy, but it had little merit as it was not supported with any solid reasoning or substantive policy. (b) Railway Wharf’s “lawful use is as a public wharf, with visitor moorings for stays of up to 24 hours”. This position should be maintained for the active and long-term use of the wharf by all waterways users rather than restricted use, permanently, for the benefit of just two boats. (c) The Development Control Committee accepted that there was a flood risk, but they admitted that the risk “needed to be measured”, which confirms that they considered there was not an adequate assessment on which to base any decision (Minutes 9 June 2011, Para 2.2). The Committee undermined itself by making a decision on the matter in ignorance. (d) The committee also ‘felt’ that “the character of the river and its use for residential and leisure moorings was a consideration”. But no appraisal had been carried out as required (BRN Policy 4C.18 of instance) of the character and use of the Thames on which to base this assumption. The committee did not know, they only ‘felt’ that it was a consideration. This is not a safe reason for any decision. (e) That the “change to residential moorings will not be detrimental to provision of visitor short stay moorings” (Line 1) is patently nonsense as with two large residential boats occupying the wharf, permanently, this restricts the use by many other boats. That “there is little evidence of demand for such [visitor] moorings at this location” (Line 2) is not borne out by any substantive appraisal, as required. It is just a vague and prejudiced opinion. (f) That “a considerable amount of upgrading would be needed” to make the wharf suitable for visitor moorings (Line 3) is again stated without any detailed appraisal or information, so the point is not made. (g) That a ‘Reason for Approval’ is given that the wharf is “unsuitable for freight moorings” (Line 4) is not based on any evidential information supplied to the Development Control Committee. Also the notion that the highway infrastructure would not able to support freight is not endorsed by any study or evaluation, and it was not noted by the Committee that there is a multiple-lane major highway (A308) in close proximity to the wharf. The Inspector in the Appeal Decision 9 February 2010 referred to Railway Wharf as “a public wharf with direct road access” (Para 23). (h) In comparison to the weak justification for just two residential boats over staying on the well established amenity of a public wharf which should be available for use by the wider public, there is substantial reasoning and policy which upholds the objections to the application which has, in very similar form, been turned down repeatedly. (i) Departure from the London Plan – It is a very serious matter that the consent given by a 6 to 4 vote of the Development Control Committee is a departure from the Borough’s planning policies and responsibilities without any substantial evidence being clearly demonstrated, and very worrying that the London Plan was also run roughshod over. (j) The emerging Replacement Policy 7.26 states that “using water based transport for freight is fully in line with a range of national planning policies, in particular PPG13, which aims to deliver a modal shift in freight transport to more sustainable modes” (Para 7.63). There is no reason, certainly none from the applicants of this application nor from the Development Control Committee, that Railway Wharf should not be used in the future for freight use for local distribution, for instance. (k) Regents Network is in discussion with a freight operator to use Railway Wharf for a future construction project on the Thames, for disposal of construction and excavation waste, and as a loading point for building materials. (l) During last summer 100s of tons of coal and fuel were loaded onto a freight boat at an unofficial site in Kingston, but the operators would have preferred to use Railway Wharf. Regents Network is assisting the operators to negotiate with the Council to make provision at Railway Wharf for future use in the coming months. (m)The reduction of the potential of Railway Wharf as a visitor mooring would be unacceptable. (n) The London plan agrees that residential moorings are acceptable on London’s waterways and should be improved, but in BRN Policy 4C.13 it is stated that new moorings should “be in basins or docks”. (o) It should be noted that BRN Policy 4C.13 also makes the requirement that new residential moorings “should have land-based support facilities, including power, water, sewerage and rubbish disposal” (Para 4.176). There was no provision for these facilities to be available for the proposed residential moorings at Railway Wharf in the terms or conditions of the consent. (p) An Appraisal of the Thames had not been carried out for the Kingston section of the as required by BRN Policy 4C.18 in the London Plan. If there had been such an Appraisal, then the decision on Railway Wharf would have been more straightforward as it could have been based on requirements and expectations laid out in the Appraisal for that stretch of the River Thames. The London Plan policy says that the Appraisal “should be used as guidance for development control decisions”. In the absence of that mechanism, some sort of substitute independent assessment should have been carried out to evaluate the requirements of the Thames at Railway Wharf. This would have been credible even though it would not be fully compliant with the London Plan.

17. The Environment Agency – Object (a) The houseboats are located within the main channel of the River Thames which is defined as the functional floodplain, Flood Zone 3b. They also lie within Flood Zone 3a and Flood Zone 2. The proposed houseboats are not capable of their own navigation. They have no engine and therefore have no means of powering themselves. For this reason, we consider that in terms of Table 2 in the Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) they should be considered as a dwelling and therefore are classed as ‘More Vulnerable’ to the effects of flooding, when compared to other uses and forms of development. (b) Although that appeal decision was based on Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS25). We consider that the principles of PPS25 have been carried through to the NPPF and as a result this appeal decision is still relevant. In addition, the update to our flood model since the appeal shows that for this reach of the River Thames in a 1 in 100 year flood event, the flood risk at this location has increased further. (c) Whilst being contrary to the NPPF on flood risk grounds we also consider this proposal is contrary to Policy K24 of the K plus 20 Area Action Plan and Policies CS4, DM4 & DM7 of the adopted core strategy for your Borough as well as Policy 5.2 of the Adopted London Plan. (d) Flood risks at the site are considered significant as floodwater is expected to be deep, turbulent and potentially fast flowing during the peak of a one per cent annual probability (1 in 100 year) flood event. We remain concerned about the risks that the residents of these boats would be placed under at times of flooding, particularly should they need to evacuate the houseboats. (e) The particulars of this specific location also amplify the risks further because the houseboats are located immediately downstream and partly under the railway bridge. Flows in this location are expected to be locally faster and more turbulent in times of flood as a result of the influence of the bridge structure. Furthermore, as detailed in paragraph 21 of the Inspectors decision to the previous appeal there is a risk that the boat ‘Benfleet’ could become trapped under the bridge at times of high flow. This not only presents a risk to the occupants but also of damage to the bridge structure. In addition, a blockage caused by this structure under the bridge could then increase flood risk elsewhere. We therefore consider the risk to be sequentially greater here than in other locations along the Thames. (f) The sequential test is also an important consideration. You as Planning Authority should be satisfied that there are not other locations which are at lower flood risk where these residential houseboats could be located. (g) Any application in a flood risk zone should be supported by an appropriate Flood Risk Assessment. The model analysis performed by Mr. Rickard in support of the application is not accurate and could not be used as a basis to undertake a Flood Risk Assessment of the proposed scheme. An accurate assessment of flood risk has therefore not been undertaken for this proposed scheme which is contrary to the advice set out in Paragraph 9 of the Technical Guidance to the NPPF. Therefore, this is further reason why this proposal does not comply directly with the policy contained in the NPPF, particularly Paragraph 103. (h) Loss of Visitor Moorings - Planning Policy and other documents support the position that short stay visitor moorings should not be lost to permanent residential moorings – particularly on the main channel of the River Thames. (i) The loss of the short stay moorings is contrary to London Plan Policies 7.24, 7.25, 7.27 & 7.28. It is also contrary to Policies CS4 & DM7 of the Councils Core Strategy and Policy K13 of the Councils K+20 AAP. (j) Contrary to the Thames Water Way Plan - The Thames Waterway Plan was intended to be in force from 2006-2011 and at present it is being actively updated. Nevertheless, the principles of the plan are likely to remain when the update is complete and thus we consider it has some weight in supporting our concerns regarding the loss of visitor moorings. The Thames Waterway Plan was prepared by the Environment Agency on behalf of the River Thames Alliance. The River Thames alliance is a partnership of the key organisations that have an interest in the river. They include local authorities (including the Royal Borough of Kingston) that border the river, statutory bodies, trade organisations and user groups. The overall aim of the Thames Waterway Plan was to map out the reinvigoration of leisure and tourism along the river corridor in ways that are both socially inclusive and sustainable. (k) Kingston Moorings Plan - We note the recent consultation on the Councils Moorings Business Plan. This has further identified the need for additional short stay visitor moorings in the Borough. Therefore, any loss of present visitor moorings that would be created by this proposal would only mean that these have to be supplemented elsewhere. In our consultation to the business plan we highlighted our reservations regarding permanent moorings and would suggest that alternative locations, possibly outside the borough, are considered for permanent moorings. The Thames Waterway Plan and indeed the London Plan indicate that permanent moorings should be located in off-channel basins or backwaters and not within the main channel of the River Thames. (l) Navigation and Freight Implications - The permanent siting of the houseboats at this location creates an obstruction to the public right of navigation causing problems for navigation of the waterway in this location. This is particularly due to the houseboats’ size and location, on the wharf, immediately downstream of the railway bridge. Their location makes it difficult for other boat users to access the wharf and as a result, creates a greater loss of access to visitor moorings than just the physical moorings being taken up by the present houseboats. As a result the proposals create an obstruction to the upstream Environment Agency visitor moorings and are likely to displace additional demands on to Environment Agency moorings in other locations. We are also mindful that permanently moored vessels with no means of propulsion need suitable facilities not currently available at this site. Additionally the loss of the wharf area to facilitate freight movements is also of some concern given our commitment in the previous Thames Waterway Plan to encourage and support opportunities for the transportation of freight by water. The London Plan makes reference to use of the Blue Ribbon Network for freight movements.

18. Kingston Conservation Area Advisory Committee – Neutral

19. Richmond upon Thames Council – Object – The downstream ‘houseboat’ is in reality a floating structure. In this respect this Council considers its appearance to be wholly inappropriate to this riverside setting.

ASSESSMENT

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

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

Principle of Proposed Development

20. This planning history and previous appeal are material considerations in the determination of this application. The key consideration is whether there has been a material change in circumstances from when the proposal last considered and dismissed on appeal. (a) There has been a change in policy in the Councils Development Plan; (b) Evidence is submitted to demonstrate that the application no longer results in an unacceptable flood risk to the residents of the houseboats

Planning Policy

21. Relevant national guidance includes Sections 4 (Promoting Sustainable Transport), 10 (Meeting the challenge of Climate Change, Flooding and Coastal Change) and 12 (Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Other relevant national planning documents include the Technical Guidance to the NPPF.

22. The development plan comprises the London Plan (the current approved version of the London Plan was published in July 2011), the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames LDF Core Strategy (Adopted April 2012) and the Kingston Town Centre Area Action Plan K+20 (KTCAAP) (July 2008). Part of the evidence base for the K+20 AAP is the Kingston-upon Thames Mooring Business Plan Scooping Study (March 2006).

23. As stated in paragraph 7 of the Inspectors report 'Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that 'If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the Planning Acts, the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.'

24. Policy 7.24 (Blue Ribbon Network) of the London Plan states that ‘The Blue Ribbon Network is a strategically important series of linked spaces. It should contribute to the overall quality and sustainability of London by prioritising uses of the waterspace and land alongside it safely for water related purposes, in particular for passenger and freight transport. Regard should be paid to the Thames River Basin Management Plan.’

25. Policy 7.25 (Increasing the Use of the Blue Ribbon Network for Passengers and Tourism) of the London Plan states that ‘The Mayor will seek to increase the use of the Blue Ribbon Network for passenger and tourist river services, and supports the principle of additional cruise liner facilities on the Thames.’ Development proposals should:

(a) should protect existing facilities for waterborne passenger and tourist traffic. Applications which remove existing facilities should be refused unless suitable replacement facilities are provided (b) close to navigable waterways should maximize water transport for bulk materials, particularly during demolition and construction phases .

26. Policy 7.26 (Increasing the use of the Blue Ribbon Network for Freight Transport) states that The Mayor seeks to increase the use of the Blue Ribbon Network to transport freight. Development proposals should:

(a) should protect existing facilities for waterborne freight traffic, in particular safeguarded wharves should only be used for waterborne freight handling use.

27. It should be noted that Railway Wharf is not a safeguarded wharf as identified in the London Plan or the Safeguarded Wharfs Implementation Plan 2005 or the review 2011/12 currently being undertaken.

28. Policy 7.27 (Blue Ribbon Network: Supporting Infrastructure and Recreational Use) states that development proposals should enhance the use of the Blue Ribbon Network, in particular proposals:

(a) that result in the loss of existing facilities for waterborne sport and leisure should be refused, unless suitable replacement facilities are provided (b) should protect and improve existing access points to (including from land into water such as slipways and steps) or alongside the Blue Ribbon Network (including paths). New access infrastructure into and alongside the Blue Ribbon Network will be sought (c) should protect waterway support infrastructure such as boatyards, moorings, jetties and safety equipment etc. New infrastructure to support water dependent uses will be sought. New mooring facilities should normally be off line from main navigation routes, i.e. in basins or docks.

29. Policy 7.28 (Restoration of the Blue Ribbon Network) states that development proposals should restore and enhance the Blue Ribbon Network by: (a) taking opportunities to open culverts and naturalise river channels (b) increasing habitat value; development which reduces biodiversity should be refused (c) preventing development and structures into the water space unless it serves a water related purpose (see paragraph 7.84) (d) protecting the value of the foreshore of the Thames and tidal rivers (e) resisting the impounding of rivers (f) protecting the open character of the Blue Ribbon Network.

30. In referring to Point C above, Paragragh 7.84 (Page 245 of the London Plan) states that the range permanently moored vessels, for example residential barges, restaurants, bars and offices, can add to the diversity and vibrancy of waterways and London in general. However, their siting needs careful consideration so that the navigation, hydrology and biodiversity of the waterways are not compromised. New moorings should be managed in a way that respects the character of the waterways and the needs of its users. The BRN should not be used as an extension of the developable land in London nor should parts of it be a continuous line of moored craft.

31. Policy CS4 (Thames Policy Area) of the Councils adopted Core Strategy states that the Council, through actions identified in an adopted Mooring Business Plan, and through partnership working with the Thames Landscape Strategy and other agencies, will continue to protect and enhance the special character and environment of the River Thames and its tributaries, and will promote and enhance the use of the river and the riverside by:

(a) improving infrastructure and facilities for boat users that provide access to the river and the foreshore; such as, piers, jetties, wharfs, moorings, slipways, steps and stairs (b) improving river-based and riverside recreation and leisure activities and attractions

32. Policy DM7 (Thames Policy Area) states that proposals for riverside development and improved facilities will need to demonstrate that there will be no unacceptable impact upon navigation, biodiversity and flood risk. Development proposals on the riverside should preserve or enhance the waterside character, heritage value and setting, and provide physical and visual links with the surrounding areas (including views along the river). Proposals for river based passenger or tourist services should utilise those pier or wharf locations identified as suitable in the Kingston Town Centre Area Action Plan (K+20).

33. Policy K13 of the Councils adopted K+20 Kingston Town Centre Area Action Plan states that The Council, through the exercise of its planning powers and through initiatives with partners, will promote the River Thames to encourage greater use of the river and riverside and seek improvements to: (a) River-based and riverside recreation and leisure activities and attractions (b) Facilities for boat users, including moorings, support facilities (wharfs, jetties, landing stages and slipways), club facilities and information (c) The quality of the riverside environment, including the riverside walk, open spaces, biodiversity and links to the riverside from the rest of the centre including from Kingston Station and bus stops (d) The quality of riverside development . 34. Policy K13 goes on to state that proposals for riverside development and improved facilities will need to demonstrate that there will be no unacceptable impact upon navigation, biodiversity, flood risk or the special character and appearance of the river and riverside.

35. Policy K13 also identifies Railway Wharf for improved day moorings and proposals to reduce car parking and enhance riverside setting.

36. The supporting documentation for policy K13 of the K+20 plan, as referenced in the supporting text (paragraph 8.8), is the Kingston upon Thames Mooring Business Plan Scoping Study - Thames Side to Queens Promenade March 2006. As yet, this study is the most up to date moorings plan for the riverside in the borough and as such, is considered to be a material consideration during the determination of this application.

37. Within the Moorings Plan the site is designated as a proposal site for daytime visitor moorings. The rationale for this designation states that 'given the sites proximity to the town centre, food stores and Canbury Gardens, plus the constraints of noise and a wharf designation, this site lends itself to visitor moorings. It also combines well with the existing EA visitor moorings (on wharf frontage upstream of railway bridge and Thames side Wharf site). Boaters value being able to get their cars next to their boats before a trip for loading supplies and boarding people with mobility problems. Also, because it is a comparatively isolated site with some anti-social behaviour out of hours, it is recommended for daytime mooring only.

38. The K+20 forms part of the Councils adopted Development Plan and is up to date and should therefore be given significant weight in determining the application.

Flood Risk 39. The application site is located within Flood Zone 3b (functional floodplain).

40. The Environment Agency (EA) has provided comments on the application that relate to the flood risk and safety considerations associated with the application.

41. The EA published new flood maps for the River Thames between Sunbury and in February 2011. Their detailed comments are set out in the consultation section of this report.

42. Policy K24 of the K+20 AAP states that within Flood Zone 3b, functional floodplain, only water compatible uses and essential infrastructure will be permitted, unless the site specific recommendations in the SFRA state otherwise.

43. The Technical Guidance to the NPPF demonstrates in Table 3 (p. 8) that within Zone 3b water compatible development is acceptable and an exception test is required for essential infrastructure. The only residential accommodation that falls within the water compatible development is essential ancillary sleeping or residential accommodation for staff required by uses in this category, subject to a specific warning and evacuation plan. The proposed accommodation is not ancillary to a business.

Impact on Character of Area 44. The application site falls within Character Area 10 (North Kingston) of the K+20 AAP although it does border Character Area 5 (Riverside North) also. The main objectives of these character areas, relevant to this application are below: (a) Character Area 10 (North Kingston) (i) Complete the regeneration of the area with high quality mixed use development, including residential, education, GP healthcare facility, offices, a hotel and community uses on Proposal Sites P17 - 20 (ii) Linked public realm, riverside, gateway, pedestrian and cycle route improvements, including Skerne Road (b) Character Area 5 (Riverside North) (i) High quality mixed use development (ii) Riverside enhancements to moorings and the riverside walk and a new riverside public space on Site P12 (K10 and K13) (iii) To secure public access to the John Lewis undercroft to view the old bridge remains and re-use of the vacant riverside restaurant unit (iv) To improve access to the riverside and provide active frontages (K9) (v) Maintain and enhance public parking (K20)

45. The application site is located within the Riverside North Conservation Area and the Thames Side Strategic Area of Special Character.

46. The site is adjacent to the Conservation Area on the western side of the River Thames in the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames.

47. This area of Kingston upon Thames is currently undergoing much change with large mixed use developments being built at 4 Waters Lane (Turks Boatyard) and the Power Station.

Impact on Neighbours’ Residential Amenity 48. The nearest residential accommodation is Osiers Court, approximately 45 metres to the south east.

Highways & Parking 49. The Councils Neighbourhood Traffic Engineer has raised concerns with on-street parking in the surrounding area and has recommended that the proposal be subject to a legal agreement covering the removal of parking permits.

Trees 50. There are no tree or landscape concerns with the application.

Legal Agreements 51. A legal agreement would be required in order to preclude the residents of these moorings from applying for on-street parking permits or for Council owned car parks.

Sustainability 52. There are no issues of sustainability relating to this application.

BACKGROUND PAPERS held by IAIN BUZZA (author of this report) Tel. 020 8547 5331 Email [email protected]

Application file Relevant Committee reports and related papers/correspondence

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

(c) Crown Copyright. All right reserved. Royal Borough of Kingston 2007. Licence number 100019285.

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

Previous Relevant History

06/12375/FUL Change of use to temporary Permit Conditions residential moorings for a period of 1 23/02/2007 year for 2 houseboats; installation of waste tank 08/12582/FUL Change of use to permanent Refused 26/03/2009, residential moorings for two boats Appeal Dismissed 06/04/2010

Applicant's Plan Nos:

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