For enquiries on this agenda please contact: Leah O'Donovan 020 8547 4623 e-mail:[email protected] This agenda is available on www.kingston.gov.uk/CommitteeMinutes

15 July 2010

PLEASE NOTE VENUE

AGENDA

A meeting of the KINGSTON TOWN NEIGHBOURHOOD COMMITTEE will be held at the NORTH KINGSTON CENTRE, RICHMOND ROAD, KINGSTON UPON THAMES on MONDAY 19 JULY 2010 at 7:30 pm

Members of the Committee

Canbury Ward Councillor Geoff Austin Councillor Andrea Craig Councillor Tim Dennen

Grove Ward Councillor Chrissie Hitchcock Councillor Barry O'Mahony (Vice-Chair) Councillor Marc Woodall

Norbiton Ward Councillor Stephen Brister Councillor David Ryder-Mills (Chair) Councillor Penny Shelton

Tudor Ward Councillor David Cunningham Councillor Dennis Doe Councillor Frank Thompson

EMERGENCY EVACUATION ARRANGEMENTS

These will be announced at the beginning of the meeting.

INFORMATION FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC

Details on access to the meeting, asking questions, speaking on items and other information are just after the list of items. 2

QUESTION TIME

The first 30 minutes are available to deal with questions to the Chair from members of the public. Further details are contained in the Further Meeting Information section overleaf.

RUNNING ORDER

Please note that the list of items below is NOT a running order

Items may be taken in a different order depending on the interests of the members of the public present at the meeting. Please fill out a pink form, available at the start of the meeting, if you would like to request that a particular item is heard earlier.

AGENDA

A APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

B MINUTES

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 23 June 2010

C PETITIONS

To receive any petitions from residents.

D DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

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

1. LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN - 2011/12 PROGRAMME Appendix A

2. HIGHWAYS MAINTENANCE 2010/11 Appendix B

3. PLANNING AND URBAN DESIGN BRIEF FOR NEW Appendix C SECONDARY SCHOOL ON THE NORTH KINGSTON CENTRE SITE

4. WORK PROGRAMME Appendix D

5. URGENT ITEM AUTHORISED BY THE CHAIR - PLANNING POLICY STATEMENT: HOUSING

3

PLEASE NOTE – FURTHER MEETING INFORMATION

ACCESS TO MEETINGS

All meetings have access for people who may have mobility difficulties. If there are stairs a lift or stairlift is available. -

• Toilet facilities will be easily accessible from the meeting room.

• An induction loop is also provided, this may, depending on the building, only be available in the first two or three rows.

• People who have a visual impairment may prefer to sit in the front rows particularly if they use a viewer. This may appear similar to a camera.

QUESTION TIME

1. Questions may be submitted in writing before the meeting or handed in at the start of the meeting on the pink forms provided. For enquiries or to submit a question in advance, please contact Leah O'Donovan 020 8547 4623 e-mail:[email protected]

2. After written questions have been dealt with, if time allows, other questions may be tabled at the meeting.

3. Where a full reply cannot be given at the meeting, a written reply will be sent to the questioner, members of the Committee and the local press.

4. The Chair may disallow any question which, in his/her opinion, is vulgar or abusive, irrelevant or otherwise objectionable.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION DURING THE MEETING

During the course of the meeting, the Chair, at his/her discretion, may allow contributions and questions from residents of the Neighbourhood.

DATES OF FUTURE MEETINGS

Meetings are held at the Guildhall, High Street, Kingston upon Thames and start at 7.30pm unless otherwise stated.

May 2010 – April 2011

Neighbourhood Committee Planning Sub-Committee – meetings marked # will be combined with the Neighbourhood Committee Wednesday 21 July 2010 Wednesday 15 September 2010 Wednesday 15 September 2010 # Wednesday 20 October 2010 Wednesday 10 November 2010 Wednesday 15 December 2010 Wednesday 19 January 2011 Wednesday 9 February 2011 Wednesday 9 March 2011 Wednesday 6 April 2011 4

NEIGHBOURHOOD INFORMATION SHEET

Welcome to this meeting. The following information explains the way some things are done at the meeting and some of the procedures.

Do you want to ask a question or are you here for a particular item

There are some pink slips on the chairs and there are more copies. These can be used to ask a question or to ask for an item to be taken earlier in the meeting. Please fill in the relevant part and hand this in to the Committee Secretary at the top table.

Making a point on a particular item

At the Chair’s discretion, you may make a contribution to the debate on an item. To attract the Chair’s attention please raise your hand. This does not apply to planning applications where different arrangements apply.

WHAT ARE INTERESTS/EXECUTIVE DECISIONS/CALL IN

Like all organisations, the Council has its own ‘jargon’. On the agenda and during debates you will see/hear the following phrases.

Interests

Councillors must say if they have an interest in any of the items on the agenda. Interests may be personal or prejudicial. In general terms, a private interest is where the item could be viewed as benefiting the well-being or financial position of themselves, a relative or a friend more than it would other residents/businesses, etc. in the borough. A prejudicial interest is where it would be reasonable for a member of the public to take the view that a Councillor’s personal interest in the matter is so significant that their judgement of the public interest may be prejudiced. Depending on the interests declared it may be necessary for the Councillor to leave the meeting. The detail on interests is in Part 5A of the Constitution - Members’ Code of Conduct.

Executive Decisions

This covers most of the decisions made at the Committee with the exception of decisions on planning applications/ planning enforcement/tree preservation orders and licensing applications. The point on executive decisions is that they can be called in for review. The call in period is 5 days after the minutes have been published. Decisions are not, therefore, acted upon until it is clear that they are not going to be called in. The call in procedure is explained overleaf.

Minutes

The minutes briefly summarise the item and record the decision. They do not record who said what during the debate.

5

NEIGHBOURHOOD COMMITTEES : DECISIONS AND THE CALL IN PROCEDURE

General 1. The deadline for calling in decisions is 5 working days from when the minutes are published. The 5:00pm deadline and the date are stated on the minutes.

2. The call in request together with a statement of the reasons for the matter having been called-in should be made in writing to the Democratic Support Officer mentioned in the minutes. A letter, e-mail or fax will be accepted.

3. Decisions can be called in by • Three or more Councillors, • the Chair of the Scrutiny Panel, • the Chair of a Neighbourhood Committee affected by the proposal • 100 interested people - defined as anyone who lives, works, studies or owns a property or business in the Borough.

4. A decision can only be called in once.

Does the call-in process change the decision? 5. Other Neighbourhoods - where there is an impact on them – the Scrutiny Panel and indeed the Council, can review decisions made by Neighbourhood Committees. However only the Neighbourhood can change its original decision. If it is not prepared to revise or amend the decision it will be implemented. The only exceptions are where the decision is contrary to the policy framework, or budget. In these exceptional circumstances the Council can decide the issue.

6. The same ‘rules’ apply to any decisions of the Executive that are called in.

What happens when a Neighbourhood decision is called in. 7. When a Neighbourhood decision is called in it will referred to the Scrutiny Panel for review. However if the Chair of another Neighbourhood Committee has called it in because they believe that the impact of the decision adversely affects their Neighbourhood, it will be referred to that Neighbourhood Committee. The Scrutiny Panel or Neighbourhood, as appropriate, will review the decision and may decide that no further action is necessary, in which case the decision will be implemented.

8. If the Scrutiny Panel or Neighbourhood Committee reviewing the decision has concerns the other steps which can be taken are

1. The reviewing Neighbourhood can

(a) send the issue back to the decision making Neighbourhood with its views and a request that the decision is reconsidered taking account of these views; (b) send the decision to the Scrutiny Panel for further review.

2 The Scrutiny Panel can

(a) send the issue back to the decision making Neighbourhood with its views and a request that the decision is reconsidered taking account of these views. Member(s) of the Scrutiny Panel have a right to attend the Neighbourhood to explain their concerns; (b) send the decision on to the Full Council for scrutiny and debate – but the Council can only change the decision in exceptional circumstances. A1 APPENDIX A

KINGSTON TOWN NEIGHBOURHOOD COMMITTEE

19 JULY 2010

2011-12 LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (LIP) FUNDING APPLICATION

REPORT BY THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION

SUMMARY

The Council is required to make a LIP funding application to Transport for London (TfL) by 8 October 2010 in order to secure funding for local transport initiatives in 2011/12. This report sets out which schemes officers recommend should be implemented during 2011/12, along with indicative funding requirements for continued funding for these schemes in 2012/13 and 2013/14. A list of reserve schemes is also presented in accordance with the TfL guidance. Please note that a full list of schemes and programmes for the future years (2012/13 and 2014) will be submitted as part of a separate LIP2 report and included in the LIP2 Delivery Plan.

The Council has been awarded the following indicative funding levels for the 2011/12 financial year based on a TfL needs-based formula: • Neighbourhoods & Corridors – £1,427,000 • Smarter Travel – £252,000 • Local Transport Funding – £100,000

Officers have prepared a list of scheme proposals, including estimated costs, within the above funding frameworks, prioritised from an original scheme long-list. The methodology for how schemes were prioritised is set out in this report.

This provides a formal opportunity for the Committee to express their views on which local transport initiatives are supported and should be included on the proposed 2011/12 prioritised list. The full Borough-wide prioritised listing will be considered by the Executive on 7 September 2010, as will any views expressed by the Neighbourhood Committees.

The Major scheme allocations and Maintenance allocations (covering Principal Roads and Bridges only) will be made known to the Council later in the year.

RECOMMENDATIONS

It is RECOMMENDED that the prioritised scheme lists included in ANNEXES 1-3 be supported and any additional views be provided and reported to the Executive on 7 September 2010.

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

To agree the scheme priorities for consideration by the Executive on 7 September 2010.

A2

BACKGROUND

1. Following Transport for London’s (TfL) reform of the LIP funding process, the London Boroughs now have a greater influence than before over the local transport initiatives which are implemented in their areas.

2. Previously, significant resources were utilised by the Council to create a long-list of schemes (including detailed supporting information). TfL then decided from the list which initiatives received the funding, meaning that there was a degree of abortive effort in preparing the bid.

3. TfL’s new LIP funding process, now means that the Council is informed of the funding level it will receive prior to submission for a number of Programme areas. The Council must now submit a list of transport interventions within this funding framework and demonstrate that they are consistent with the Mayor of London’s Transport Strategy. Supporting information is no longer required.

4. Earlier in 2010, TfL confirmed the following indicative LIP funding allocations for the Borough, based on a new ‘needs based’ formula allocation applied to their overall London-wide funding pot. TfL has also indicated that there is some flexibility between these programmes. a. Corridors and Neighbourhoods Programme – £1,427,000 b. Smarter Travel Programme – £252,000 c. Local Transport Funding Programme – £100,000

5. The Council is now required to submit a list of transport initiatives, including associated costs, by 8 October 2010 within the above financial frameworks, plus a list of reserve schemes (should any on the initial list not be delivered). Reserve schemes should cost up to 20% of the value of each programme.

6. TfL will then assess the initiatives submitted; however, TfL will only query or reject initiatives if they do not comply with the Mayor of London’s transport strategy or do not have sufficient narratives. The final scheme list therefore includes scheme narratives and demonstrations of policy compliance.

7. These allocations will be supplemented later in the year with further LIP funding for the following additional Programmes. a. Maintenance Schemes (Principal Roads and Bridges only) b. Major Schemes

8. Funding for Maintenance and Major Schemes will continue to be allocated by TfL on the result of condition surveys and TfL step-based guidance respectively. The Major Schemes programme covers those projects previously identified in the Area Based Schemes (ABS). RBK will be seeking ongoing funds for Tolworth Broadway, and going forward for Kingston Ancient Market Place, Surbiton Project, Kingston Station and New Malden High Street.

9. Funding for these Programmes will be announced later in the year and will be reported to the Committee in due course.

A3

10. The Committee should note that the 2011-12 LIP scheme list will form ‘Year 1’ of the three year LIP2 delivery Plan. Officers have also presented indicative funding requirements for 2012/13 and 2013/14 for the schemes which commence in 2011/12 (i.e. identifying those that require continued funding), but not for any additional schemes at this stage. Further schemes for Year 2 and Year 3 of the delivery plan (2012/13 and 2013/14) will be set out in RBK’s draft LIP2 which will be presented to Committee later in 2010.

11. A list of reserve schemes for 2011/12 is also presented in accordance with the TfL guidance.

PROPOSAL

12. Officers have prepared a long-list of transport initiatives within the framework of the indicative funding levels advised by TfL for the Corridors & Neighbourhood, Smarter Travel and Local Transport Funding programmes.

13. This long-list represented a value greater than the indicative funding the Council has been allocated. With the responsibility for prioritising the long-list now within the Council and not TfL, it was essential that a systematic and logical methodology was developed to prioritise these schemes. This will ensure that lower priority schemes are phased in for later years and schemes which do not meet the Mayor of London’s transport Goals and Outcomes are ruled out.

14. Officers have prioritised the long-list of schemes along the following basis (grounded in advice from the Department for Transport): a. Priority schemes will be those that have already been programmed to continue into 2011/12. For example they could be schemes which will complete detailed design in 2010/11 and then require implementation in 2011/12, or could be schemes which require additional funding to complete implementation. b. Consideration has been given to the Mayor of London’s transport Goals and transport Outcomes, as well as our own emerging LIP Objectives, given that this will be where TfL make the assessment. c. Consideration has been given to the value for money these schemes represent (i.e. the balance between the number of people the scheme will benefit against the cost, as well as the severity of the issue that needs to be addressed). d. Consideration has also been given to the key delivery risks (practical, financial, political, public acceptance)

RECOMMENDED 2011/12 PROGRAMME

15. The recommended priorities for the Corridors & Neighbourhood Programme, together with a list of reserve schemes are shown in ANNEX 1.

16. The recommended priorities for the Smarter Travel Programme are shown in ANNEX 2. N.B. Any reserve schemes will be formulated from the four programmes outlined. Resources can be easily deployed within and between the proposed programmes if necessary.

A4

17. The recommended priorities for the Local Transport Funding Programme schemes are shown in ANNEX 3. N.B. Any reserves schemes will be drawn from the schemes proposed in Annexes 1 or 2.

18. The cycle training scheme has been jointly funded by Smarter Travel and Corridors & Neighbourhoods, as occurred in 2010/11, but shown in its entirety in the Smarter Travel programme. Hence the total in Annex 1 is shown as £1367k and as £312k in Annex 2. (i.e. £60k from Annex 1 has been shown in Annex 2)

19. Annexes 1, 2 and 3 also show future funding requirements of the 2011/12 schemes but not any new schemes for 2012/13 or 2013/14. A full list of schemes and programmes for those years will be set out in the LIP2 report which will be presented to Committee later in 2010.

TIMESCALE

20. Maldens and Coombe and Surbiton are the first in the cycle of Neighbourhood Committees to consider this report on 14 July 2010. The report goes to South of the Borough Neighbourhood on 21 July 2010. All Neighbourhoods will have the opportunity to comment on the proposals in July. The views expressed by the four Neighbourhood Committees will be reported to the Executive on 7 September 2010.

21. The timetable for the 2011/12 LIP funding application is set out in Figure 1 below. The key action will be to submit a scheme list for the Corridors & Neighbourhoods, Smarter Travel and Local Transport Funding Programmes by 8 October 2010. The Council must also set out a ‘reserve list’ of schemes based upon a further 20% of the funding allocated.

Figure 1: Kingston LIP Funding Submission Timetable July 2010 to April 2011

Date Action Required

14, 19 and 21 July Neighbourhood Committee sign-off of 2011/12 schemes 2010 7 September 2010 Executive sign-off of 2011/12 schemes

8 October 2010 TfL Submission Deadline October to TfL will review initiatives and discuss any issues arising December 2010 from this review process December 2010 (tbc) TfL will confirm plans for schemes/intervention delivery

April 2011 2011/12 LIP Programme commences (Year 1 of 3 year LIP2 Delivery Plan)

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

22. The Coalition Government’s spending review could have an impact on the funding levels indicated for 2011/12, although TfL has not yet indicated that this is the case.

A5

23. If a scheme cannot be delivered then the next scheme in the reserve list will utilise the funds or a different scheme as determined by the Council and agreed by TfL.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS

24. The schemes will be subject to a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) as part of Second LIP (LIP2).

25. The environmental implications of each scheme will be reported when reports on individual schemes are submitted to the Committee.

NETWORK IMPLICATIONS

26. The network implications of each scheme will be reported when reports on individual schemes are submitted to the Committee

EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT

27. The schemes will be subject to an Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) as part of the Second LIP (LIP2)

Background papers: held by John Bolland – 020 8547 4691, e-mail: [email protected]

• LIP Funding Guidance (Transport for London) – May 2010 • LIP Funding Notification Paper (Transport for London) – May 2010

Other contributors: Chris Harte 020 8547 5962, email [email protected]

CN2 CN1 CORRIDORS &NEIGHBOURHOODPROGRAMME Ref Our ANNEX 1:CORRIDORS&NEIGHBOURHOODSPROGRAMME SCHEMES D ACCESSIBILITY NEIGHBOURHOO MONITORING DEVELOPMENT & SCHEME RESERVE FUTURE & rpslNm SchemeDescription Proposal Name Scheme total (£85k);Tolworth GirlsSchool£25k,Eiingham PrimarySchool£30k, HookRoadnorthofA3shopping parade£30k.Kingston towntotal(£50k);TiffinGirls School£20k,Humpedzebra crossinginParkRoad£30k Christ ChurchPrimarySchool Surbiton£15k,ChilternDriveshoppingparade£20k.SOB (total £80k);AlexandraDrive shopping parade£25k,GrandAvenuePrimarySchool£20k, Christchurch PrimarySchool £20k,MaldenParochialPrimarySchool£30k.Surbiton £130k); MaldenManorSchools £45k,CorpusChristi/ChristchurchJuniorSchool£35k, road markings.Weproposeto usethefundingaccordingly:MaldensandCoombe(total routes, streetlighting;provision ofdropkerbsandtactilepaving;improvementsto the widercommunity.Measures willincludeImprovementstocrossingfacilities,cycling name ofaschool,thescheme willhavetheaddedbenefitofimprovingaccessibilityfor expanded), butalsootherareas ofneed.Althoughaschememaybepackedunderthe to improvingaccessibilityaround schools(includingnewandthosebeing the purposeofimprovingaccessibility forlocalcommunities.Thiswillbeprimarilyrelated Funding willbeusedtoimplement araftofschemesacrossthefourNeighbourhoodswith post implementation) implementation reviews&monitoring(suchassafetyaudits andschememodifications need tobeimplementedclosetheyearend).Thefunding willalsoenableforpost they berequiredtoimplemented(thisisparticularlynecessary ifreserveschemes Funding willalsoallowforthedevelopmentofreserveschemes presentedbelow,should This willputtheBoroughinabetterpositiontoimplementschemes infutureyears. surveys, aswelltheundertakingofwalkingauditsandDDA accessibilityaudits. studies whichmayencompasstopographicsurveys;traffic surveys; andpedestrian neighbourhood accessibilityschemes.Fundingwillbeused toundertakefeasibility Funding willbeutilisedtodevelopfutureyearschemessuch asthedevelopmentof WIDE BOROUGH WIDE BOROUGH wide d/ Borough- Neighbourhoo

LIP LIP2 DeliveryPlanPeriod-LIP 3 3 130 130 130 4 0 200 200 345 2011/12 (£000s) Funding Required *LIP 2012/13 (£000s) *LIP 2013/14 (£000s) COST LIP Total

390 745 A6 CN5 CN4 CN3 CN6 Ref Our KINGSTON ST JAMES'ROAD ROAD BURLINGTON A2043 & HIGH STREET ON NEWMALDEN TRAFFIC FLOW SMOOTHING AREA / DUKESAVENUE BEVERLEY ROAD rpslNm SchemeDescription Proposal Name Scheme and designoffurniture;resurfacing ofpathways;provisioncycleparkingspaces;and cluttering ofstreetsbyremoval ofexcesssignagesandstreetfurniture;improvequality include acomprehensivepackage ofmeasures,includingwideningexistingfootways;de- James’ RoadandUnionStreet, improvingtheoverallpublicrealm.Itisexpectedto the towncentre.Thescheme aims toenhanceandimprovethepedestrianaccessSt Head Office,SurreyCountyCouncil officesandotherland-useswithKingstonStationvia Crown Court,CountyMagistrate Court,3majormulti-storeycarparks,Unilever St JamesRoadlinksKingston Counciloffices,KingstonCollege,University, is apotentiallinkageofthisproposalwithnewmajorscheme inthearea and trafficlanemarkingimprovements;Relocation/reconfiguration ofsignals.There Pedestrian refuges;Signageimprovements;Roadcondition improvements;Roadmarking Roundabout area,whereamajorityofcollisionsoccurred). Measureswillinclude 2010/11 for8-9junctionsalongtheA2043(withspecialconsideration totheFountain The fundingwouldbeusedtocontinuewiththeimplementation ofmeasuresidentifiedin separate MajorSchemesubmissiontoTfLorapplicationfor RBKCapitalfunding full reconstructionofthecarriageway.Instead willformpartofa recessed busbaysandsignals).Pleasenotethisleveloffunding willNOTallowforthe Malden HighStreetcorridor,suchastherealignmentofkerbs androadspace(including Funding willthereforebeusedtoimplementmeasuressmooth trafficflowontheNew long delaysinbothdirectionsduetoproblemswiththeA3 or attheFountainRoundabout. the 213andK1busroutes.Atbusyperiodstrafficusing HighStreetcanexperience New MaldenHighStreetisabusyroad,withmanywellfrequented shops.Italsoserves pedestrian crossing pointsandtoremoveobstructive anddangerousparking practices Funding willbe usedtoassessofallwalking routesthroughouttheareato improve phase implementation across2012/13and2013/14 or£500kinyear2 bus laneenhancement,cycling andpedestrian.accessibilityimprovements.Optionto provision ofcarclubbays.Comprehensive packageofmeasuresonthiscorridorincluding COOMBE MALDENS & COOMBE MALDENS & COOMBE MALDENS & TOWN KINGSTON wide d/ Borough- Neighbourhoo

LIP LIP2 DeliveryPlanPeriod-LIP 2 0 0 120 125 1 0 110 2011/12 35 (£000s) Funding Required *LIP 2012/13 (£000s) *LIP 2013/14 (£000s) COST LIP Total

120 125 110

35 A7 CN7 CN11 CN10 CN9 CN8 Ref Our CYCLING CHARLES ROAD SCHOOL /KING HOLLYFIELD PACKAGE CORRIDOR EWELL ROAD BRIDGE ROAD PROJECT SURBITON SCHEMES GREENWAYS BOROUGH & BIKING rpslNm SchemeDescription Proposal Name Scheme rail bridge. between theschoolandKingCharlesRoadtodealwith barriercreatedbythenarrow Funding willbeusedtoimplementaschemeimprovethe cyclingandwalkingroute er udn ol eue o mrvmnsi orLn.SOB This corridorispartoftheA240, whichprovidesthemainlinkbetweenA3atTolworth years fundingwouldbeused for improvementsinMoorLane. 2011/12 tofundanewpedestrian crossingbyParburyRiseandanewbusstop.Infuture implemented byChessington NorthStationandParade.Fundingwillbeutilisedin west andsouth.Busroutes71 and467usethecorridor.Improvementshavebeen Epsom andEwell.Itattractstraffic thatistravellingtoandfromtheA3A309 The BridgeRoad/MoorLane corridorisalocaldistributorthatlinksChessingtonto alternative arrangementsfortaxis andpickup/dropoff funded byRBK.Alongerterm aimistoenhancethestationforecourtbyproviding Mark’s Hill.Theprojectincludesreconstructionofthecarriageway ofVictoriaRoad provision ofservicingfacilitiesinVictoriaRoad,Brighton ClaremontRoadandSt. includes improvementstobusreliability,road andpedestriansafety scheme, throughthecontinuationofdesignscheme. TheSurbitonProject Surbiton Project,£50kofLIPfundingwillbeutilisedtomaintain momentumwiththe Until MajorSchemefundingorRBKcapitalcanbe sourcedforthestrategic include CoombeRd/Cambridgeavenue,LondonRd/Cambridge RoadCorridors. junctions andbusyroads)inordertoincreasetakeupofcycling. Specificschemesmay focus willbeonschemesthatovercomebarriersandsafety concernsforcyclists(suchas schemes (includingthoseidentifiedintheBikingBoroughand Greenwaysstudies).The Funding willbeutilisedforthedevelopmentandimplementation ofarangecycling eetincosns n ulcramipoeeta h hpigprds SURBITON pedestrian crossings; andpublicrealmimprovement attheshoppingparades. associated with theusesofstreetincluding theoperationofbuslanes, parking, improve thecorridor. Thereviewofbuspriority measureswillpickupallthe issues (part). Funding willbeusedtoimplementa comprehensive packageofmeasures to Broadway. The routeisusedbybusroutes281 (24hour),406,418,K1(part) andK2 and Kingstontown centrepassingthrougha numberofshoppingareasincluding Tolworth SURBITON SURBITON WIDE BOROUGH wide d/ Borough- Neighbourhoo

LIP LIP2 DeliveryPlanPeriod-LIP 2011/12 80 50 50 100 100 55 020250 250 50 (£000s) Funding Required *LIP 2012/13 (£000s) *LIP 2013/14 (£000s) COST LIP Total

255 550

80 50 A8 CN13 CN12 CN16 CN15 CN14 Ref Our ROAD BERRYLANDS PARK ROAD/ LAS CLAYTON ROAD SURBITON AVENUE, BURNEY CYCLE PARKING PROGRAMME ACCESSIBILITY BUS STOP rpslNm SchemeDescription Proposal Name Scheme l oehnetewligadccigfclte ntera.SOB bus stops junction andimprovepedestriancrossingfacilitieswhichwill alsoprovidebetteraccessto Implementation ofaschemethatwasdesignedin2009/10 toimprovesafetyatthe all toenhancethewalkingandcyclingfacilitiesinroad. facilities, tocyclingroutes,streetlighting,theprovisionof dropkerbsandtactilepaving been indevelopment2010/11.Schemeelementswillinclude improvementstocrossing Funding willbeusedtoimplementtheClaytonRoadlocalaccessibility schemewhichhas for KingstonUniversity. Burney Avenue whichisabusrouteandaccess toalargestudentaccommodation facility Funding willbeusedtoimplement asafetyschemetoreducethespeedofvehiclesin cycle parkingatworkplacesand residentialdevelopments(includingcouncilestates). Kingston, andTolworth(inpartnership withSWTrains);andsupportfortheinstallationof funding fortheprovisionofsecure cycleparkingattrainstationsincludingNewMalden, parking atshoppingparades and otherkeypublicdestinationsasidentifiedinLIP2; where itiscrucialtosupportthe takeupofcycling.Thiswillinclude;theprovisioncycle Funding willbeusedtosupport theinstallationofcycleparkinginarangelocations for morecomplexstops compliant. Thesewillbeaddressed inthe2011/12financialyearandalsofutureyears By theendof2010/11therewillbearoundadozenbusstops whicharecurrentlynon- • Improvementstoroadsurfacing. • Improvementstoroadmarkingsincludingbusboxetc;and • Resurfacingoffootways; • Raisingkerblevelstostandard140mm; broadly includethefollowing with theDisabilityDiscriminationAct(DDA)of1995.Asapart oftheexercise,works works. Thisprogrammewillensurethatthereiscompatibility ofbusstopsintheborough Funding willbeusedtocontinuewiththerolling-programme ofbusstopaccessibility SURBITON SURBITON WIDE BOROUGH WIDE BOROUGH wide d/ Borough- Neighbourhoo

LIP LIP2 DeliveryPlanPeriod-LIP 2011/12 700 0 0 37 50 50 03 30 20 30 20 20 30 30 (£000s) Funding Required *LIP 2012/13 (£000s) *LIP 2013/14 (£000s) COST LIP Total

100

37 80 80 A9 CN21 CN20 CN17 CN24 CN22 CN19 CN18 CN23 CORRIDORS &NEIGHBOURHOODPROGRAMME TOTALS** Ref Our QUEEN FundingwillbeusedtoImprovethiswalkingroute ROAD/ MAPLE BEAUFORT SURBITON ROAD/ ROAD ELIZABETH ROAD THORNHILL (LINK 122) ROAD CYCLING J/W SKERNE WOOD STREET STUDY CORRIDOR K1 &K2BUS ROAD CAMBRIDGE WAY toA2043 WHEATFIELD CYCLE LINKS ST JOSEPH'S LANE ROBIN HOOD rpslNm SchemeDescription Proposal Name Scheme cycling facilities.Thisisahighly important'missing'north-southlink Funding willbeusedtoundertake afeasibilitystudyfortheprovisionofshareduse SURBITON to thebusroutesinHookRoad. Measureswouldincludesideentrytreatments. Funding willbeusedtoimprove thispedestriancorridorthatlinksalargeresidentialarea agreed andimplemented. undertaken already,howevertherearestillsignallingarrangement whichneedtobe relief roadjoiningKingstonBridgetoStation.Much initialworkhasbeen The schemewillprovideanalternativeeasttowestlinkalong thenorthernsectionof long term solutions toaddressthis.TheS3andtheotherKrouteswould belookedatinthemore residential areas.Currentlybusescanbeobstructedandthe studywillattempttoidentify principle aimofidentifyingmeasureswhichwillenhancebus flowsthroughtheselargely Funding willbeusedtoundertakeastudyoftheK1andK2 buscorridors,withthe Hampden Rdjunction. SURBITON trafficked route.Measureswill includeimprovedright-turnfacilitiesatCambridgeRd/ Funding willbeusedtoimplement aseriesofsmallchangestopromotethislightly path adjacenttoStJoseph'sschool tolinkFairfieldRdwithSouth Funding willbeusedfortheprovision ofasegregatedpedestrianandcycleroutesonthe replaced, possiblywithflattoptables at reducingvehiclespeeds.Thesemeasuresareinapoor condition andneedtobe Funding willbeusedtoreviewexistingspeedcushionswhich areprovingtobeineffective SURBITON TOWN KINGSTON TOWN KINGSTON WIDE BOROUGH TOWN KINGSTON COOMBE MALDENS & wide d/ Borough- Neighbourhoo

LIP LIP2 DeliveryPlanPeriod-LIP 3780702907 740 800 1367 2011/12 01 10 10 10 000 0 50 75 R 050 10 R 235 15 R 50 R 0145 10 R 35 R (£000s) Funding Required *LIP 2012/13 (£000s) *LIP 2013/14 (£000s) COST LIP Total

250 155

75 30 60 50 50 35 A10 *I 011 6kfo ordr n egbuhosPormei hw sicue nSatrTae rgam nAnx2RReserve R ** In2011/12£60kfromCorridorsandNeighbourhoodsProgramme isshownasincludedinSmarterTravelProgrammeAnnex2 Newproposalsfor2012/13and2013/14willbepresented toCommitteeintheLIP2report. * Pleasenotethatfundingforfutureyears(2012/13&2013/14) onlyincludesrequirementsforcontinuationorreserveschemes,andthereforedoesnotincludeanynewproposals. CN25 CN26 Ref Our IMPROVEMENTS CYCLE FAIRFIELD PACKAGE CORRIDOR HOOK ROAD rpslNm SchemeDescription Proposal Name Scheme Ground Funding willbeutilisedtoimplementasegregatedcyclelane throughFairfieldRecreation sdt otnewt h mlmnaino esrswihcmecdi 001. SOB used tocontinuewiththeimplementationofmeasureswhich commencedin2010/11. turning movementsoutofThornhillRoadontothisbusyprimary route.Fundingwillbe Thornhill RoadandHooknorthoftheAshTreeClose, sotherearebusesmaking residential. Itisabusybuscorridorusedbyroutes71,K4and 465.BusRouteK1,serves Junction toSurbitonandKingstonthissectionoftheroad ispredominantly on theBorough'sprincipalroadnetwork.HookRoadis A243thatlinkstheA3atHook This corridorrunsalongHookRoadbetweenAshTreeClose andVeronaDriveitis TOWN KINGSTON TOTALS RESERVE wide d/ Borough- Neighbourhoo

LIP LIP2 DeliveryPlanPeriod-LIP 2011/12 100 0 R 50 0 R (£000s) Funding Required *LIP

9 8 775 580 195 2012/13 (£000s) *LIP 2013/14 (£000s) COST LIP Total

100

50 A11 e ceePooa aeSchemeDescription CYCLETRAINING** ST1 SMARTER TRAVELPROGRAMME SchemeProposalName Ref Our ** Includes£60k from CorridorsandNeighbourhoods Programme-SeeAnnex1 SMARTERTRAVEL RESERVESCHEMES ST5 SCHOOLSSUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT ST4 WORKPLACESUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT ST3 TRAVELAWARENESSANDINFORMATION ST2 ANNEX 2:SMARTERTRAVELPROGRAMME SMARTER TRAVELPROGRAMME TOTALS amount isusedefficiently scheme areascan quicklyandeasilybeincreased toensurethefullfunding project inoneareaisnotabletobe progressedthenactivityinoneoftheother Please notethatactivityintheSmarter TravelProgrammeisflexibleandifa greatest potentialformodalshift schools thatexperiencethemost significant transportproblemsandhavethe maximum modalshift.Activitywill befocussedintogivinggreatersupporttothose implementation ofSchoolTravelPlans toensuretheyareeffectiveinachieving Funding willbeusedtopromoteand supporttheongoingdevelopmentand of travelinformation,carsharingwebsites etc. travel suchascycleparking,showers, cycletraining,walkingpromotion,provision provide supporttobusinessesimplementmeasuresencourage sustainable Kingston TownCentre,ChessingtonIndustrialAreaandSurbiton.Activity will on supportingexistingtravelplansforlargebusinessesandplan networksin Workplace TravelPlansbybusinesseswithintheBorough.Thiswill focusactivity BOROUGH-WIDE Funding willbeusedtopromoteandsupportthedevelopmentofvoluntary council estates. personalised travelplanningandsitespecificadviceforresidents inlarge and smarterdriving(carclubs,electricvehiclesetc).Thiswillalsoinclude information ontraveloptions,cycleroutes,walkingpublictransport options Residents. Themainfocusofactivitywillbeonprovidingpractical travel through campaignsandinformationtargetedatSchools,Workplaces and Funding willbeusedtoincreasetheawarenessofsustainabletravel options particualry focusedaroundincreasingcyclingtowork. school children.Fundingwillalsobeusedforcycletrainingandactivities foradults, primary schoolsandincreasingtakeupofadvancecycletrainingfor secondary include deliveryofbasiccycletraining("bikeabilitylevels1&2")to children atall Funding willbeusedforthetrainingofcyclistsallagesandabilities. Thiswill Borough-wide Neighbourhood/ BOROUGH-WIDE BOROUGH-WIDE BOROUGH-WIDE LIP2 DeliveryPlanPeriod-LIPFunding LIP 1 1 1 936 312 312 312 1 1 117 117 117 2011/12 07 70 70 60 70 60 60 65 65 65 050 50 R (£000s)

LIP 2012/13 Required (£000s)

LIP 2013/14 (£000s) COST Total LIP

351 210 180 195 100 A12 LT3 LT2 LT1 SchemeDescription SchemeProposalName LOCAL TRANSPORTFUNDING Our Ref LOCAL TRANSPORTFUNDING TOTALS ANNEX 3:LOCALTRANSPORTFUNDINGPROGRAMME Research andMonitoring INFRASTRUCTURE SMARTER VEHICLE FREIGHT PROGRAMME Funding willbeusedtoinstalltrafficandcyclecountersaswell as achieve theMayorofLondon'sgoalsforLondon-widenetworks. Car ClubandElectricVehicleInfrastructureintheBorough,to help Funding willbeutilisedtosupportthedevelopmentandpromotion of Jubilee Way,andmeasuresforSouthLane. Funding willbealsousedtoinvestigatealorrystandby/layby on Chessington IndustrialEstatefromKingstonRoadforallmodes. of freightmovementsintheareas.Improvedsignageinto&within Funding willbeusedtoimplementmeasuresminimisethe impact better establishhowtheirtransport needscanbeimproved. surveys ofresidentsinareas poorpublictransportaccessibility,to LIP programme.Fundingwillalso beusedtoundertaketravel air qualitymonitoringequipmenttoenableeffective ofthe BOROUGH-WIDE BOROUGH-WIDE BOROUGH-WIDE Neighbourhood/ Borough-wide

LIP LIP2 DeliveryPlanPeriod- 0 0 0 300 100 100 100 2011/12 LIP FundingRequired 03 090 30 30 30 03 090 30 30 30 04 0120 40 40 40 (£000s) LIP 2012/13 (£000s) LIP

2013/14 COST Total LIP A13 B1 APPENDIX B

KINGSTON TOWN CENTRE NEIGHBOURHOOD COMMITTEE

19 JULY 2010

CARRIAGEWAY AND FOOTWAY PLANNED MAINTENANCE 2010/2011

REPORT BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY

SUMMARY

As a consequence of the severe winter weather experienced in 2009/10, a number of carriageways across the Borough suffered accelerated failures that required an urgent response to keep them usable and safe for traffic. This has had budget ramifications and a subsequent effect on the 2010/11 Neighbourhood Planned Maintenance Programmes agreed at the 18 February meeting. The report informs the Committee of what works were needed in their Neighbourhood and, as a consequence of the Executive meeting of the 30 June, the revised Neighbourhood carriageway and footway planned maintenance budget for 2010/11.

RECOMMENDATION

It is RECOMMENDED that the Committee note the reasons for the adjustment to their carriageway and footway planned maintenance budget and agree the amended programme of works as set out in ANNEX 1 .

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION

To agree a revised programme for 2010/11 in view of the budget effects of the severe winter weather works.

BACKGROUND

1. As a result of the severe winter weather in December 2009 and January/February 2010, there were a number of streets in the Borough where the carriageway construction failed and/or the surface condition suffered accelerated deterioration. In order to keep these streets usable and safe for public use, it was necessary to arrange immediate remedial works.

PROPOSALS

2. The 2009/10 outturn of accounts report to the Executive of the 30 June 2010 recommended that Kingston Town, along with Maldens & Coombe and Surbiton, retain 75% of its allocated budget for planned highways maintenance. The Neighbourhood planned carriageway and footway budget for 2010/11 has been reduced from £137,200 to £102,900. 3. The remaining 25% of the budget should be held back at present to mitigate the possibility of a failure in respect of one of these roads which is too costly to be met from within the budget of a single Neighbourhood. 4. It is proposed to authorise the Director of Environment and Sustainability to allocate the monies held back to meet any further urgent highways maintenance expenditure as it becomes necessary. B2

5. Should these funds not be sufficient to address all of the urgent work required, the Director of Environment and Sustainability should be authorised to utilise any under spends on responsive highways maintenance budgets to offset any further costs incurred as a consequence of repairs required. 6. There are currently no roads in Kingston Town identified as at risk of failure from the severe weather, thus requiring regular inspection to monitor their condition. 7. At their 18 February 2010 meeting, the Committee considered and agreed their preferred schemes for 2010/11. These were: a. Wood Street, Bentalls entrance opposite Downhall Rd to Clarence St - one side (footway); b. Richmond Park Road, Whole length - both sides (footway); c. Beresford Road, Whole length - both sides (footway); d. Wyndham Road, Whole Length (carriageway); and e. Albert Road, Whole Length (carriageway).

8. The expected expenditure for these schemes was £125,200; however, the available budget is now insufficient to proceed with all of them.

9. The Committee is therefore requested to review their decision of the 18 February 2010 and reallocate their budget as set out in ANNEX 1.

TIMESCALE

10. The works will be scheduled as quickly as possible in this financial year and the programme will be completed by the end of March 2011. The actual timing of scheme works will be determined and co-ordinated with other activities, such as Statutory Undertakers schemes, school holidays and other relevant events, as part of the Council’s network management duties as contained in the Traffic Management Act 2004. The programme of schemes will again be posted on the Council’s website.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

11. As the Committee is aware, the Highway Authority has a duty, under Section 41 of the Highways Act 1980, to maintain the highways for which they are responsible.

12. If a person believes they have suffered damage as a result of a failure to maintain the highway, the Highways Authority has a defence if it proves that it “had taken such care as in all the circumstances was reasonably required to secure that the part of the highway to which the action relates was not dangerous for traffic”.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS

13. By its very nature road works produce waste material that requires disposal rather than re-use at site. Every effort is being made by the Borough’s partnering contractors to find effective ways of recycling this waste into acceptable materials that can be introduced back to the market. Officers are also increasingly specifying the use of recycled materials when ordering works.

B3

NETWORK IMPLICATIONS

14. There will be little long-term effect of the works programme on the traffic efficiency of the highway network. However, where practicable relevant changes to white lining, pedestrian/disability access and the reduction of street clutter will be combined with maintenance works to improve efficiency, safety and the street environment.

15. There will be a certain amount of disruption to traffic whilst works are being carried out. Each maintenance scheme will be assessed to determine this risk and extent of possible disruption and, from this, the most beneficial traffic management, co- ordination, programming and restricted working hours will be agreed. This is especially the case where works are close to and/or may affect travelling to schools.

Background documents - held by the author of the report (unless stated) : David White, Service Manager (Highway Assets); 020 8547 5909, [email protected]:

1. Information on last year’s completed schemes 2. UKpms survey data and analysis 3. Condition assessment details – Mark Murphy 0208 547 5998 4. Executive Report and minute (30 June 2010) – Democratic Support

B4

ANNEX 1

Set out below is the revised list of the priority works for 2010/11.

The Neighbourhood Revenue budget is £102,900

Footways

Priority Location Details Estimate Available Budget 1. Wood Street Bentalls entrance opp Downhall Rd to £8,100 £102,900 Clarence St (One Side) - relay/renew slabs 2. Richmond Park Whole length (Both Sides) - £42,300 £94,800 Road relay/renew slabs & resurface bitmac verge

Carriageway

Priority Location Details Estimate Available Budget 3. Wyndham Road Whole Length – Plane and Resurface £30,700 £52,500 4. Albert Road Whole Length – Plane and Resurface £24,900 £21,800

Reserve Footway Scheme

Priority Location Details Estimate Available Budget Beresford Road Whole length (Both Sides) - £19,200 0 relay/renew slabs & resurface bitmac verge

C1 APPENDIX C

KINGSTON TOWN NEIGHBOURHOOD COMMITTEE

19 JULY 2010

DRAFT PLANNING AND URBAN DESIGN BRIEF FOR THE NORTH KINGSTON CENTRE SITE

REPORT BY DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION

SUMMARY

There is an increasing demand for primary school places in the borough, resulting from population increase, a significant increase in the birth rate and new housing and economic factors, which is being met through the expansion of existing schools and providing a new primary school. From 2015 onwards, the current increase in primary school pupils will be at an age to transfer to secondary schools, which will require an expansion of existing non- selective secondary schools across the borough and the provision of a new school to serve the Kingston area.

The consultation draft Planning and Urban Design Brief provides planning guidance for the redevelopment of the North Kingston Centre site to provide a new secondary school for 11- 18 year olds and covers all stages of the planning process. The Brief will guide the preparation and assessment of development proposals which are expected to come forward in 2011.

RECOMMENDATIONS

It is RECOMMENDED that the Committee provide any comments on the draft Brief.

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

To give members an opportunity to comment on the draft Brief as part of the consultation process. Consultation responses and the finalised Brief are due to be reported to the Executive in September 2010.

BACKGROUND

1. There is an increasing demand for primary school places in the borough, resulting from population increase, a significant increase in the birth rate and new housing and economic factors, which is being met through the expansion of existing schools and providing a new primary school. From 2015 onwards, the current increase in primary school pupils will be at an age to transfer to secondary schools, which will require an expansion of existing non-selective secondary schools across the borough and the provision of a new school to serve the Kingston area.

C2

2. In December 2008, the Executive approved the proposal to build a new secondary school in the Kingston Town area, in response to revised data on pupil numbers and the need for additional school places by 2014-2015.

3. A land search for sites suitable for a new secondary school identified just two potential sites – the North Kingston Centre with some associated sports and post-16 facilities at the Hawker Centre. Subsequent consultation in 2009 resulted in 52% of respondents supporting the North Kingston Centre and 44% supporting the Hawker Centre. The Hawker Centre was subsequently discounted for use other than external sports facilities, due to site-specific and planning constraints. 4. The provision of a new secondary school is part of the Transforming Kingston School’s (TKS) Programme and is scheduled to be substantially funded by the Government’s national Building Schools for the Future Programme (BSF). Kingston was accepted on the BSF Programme by the previous Government in December 2009 with the intention of transforming education right across the borough, diversifying schools and providing additional school places. The first phase of the Programme is planned to include a new ‘state of the art school’ and the Planning Brief seeks “high quality design that enhances its surroundings and sustainable school journeys (walking, cycling, public transport) through robust site and travel planning, to reduce car use, minimise adverse impact on the local area and maintain highway safety.”

PURPOSE OF THE PLANNING BRIEF

5. The Brief will provide the planning framework to guide and inform the preparation and assessment of development proposals for the redevelopment of the North Kingston Centre (NKC) site and covers all stages of the planning process from feasibility and pre-application discussions through to the submission and determination of a planning application. It will act as informal planning guidance, supplementing government planning guidance and statutory development plan policies, as set out in the RBK Unitary Development Plan 2005 (as amended) and the Mayor of London’s London Plan. The adopted Brief will be a material consideration in the determination of any future planning application for a new secondary school.

CONTENT OF THE PLANNING BRIEF

6. The Brief describes the characteristics of the NKC site, identifies site constraints and opportunities, sets out the planning policy context, planning objectives, guidelines for the future development of the site, including design criteria, building parameters, building height guidelines, together with landscaping, sustainable travel, access, parking, sustainable design and energy requirements.

CONSULTATION

7. The consultation period for the draft Brief runs for six weeks from 21 June to 31 July 2010. Consultation leaflets summarising the draft Brief and including a C3

questionnaire have been distributed to some 4,000 homes and businesses within a half mile radius of the NKC site. The leaflets and Brief have been made available at the North Kingston Centre, Kingston Library, Tudor Drive Library and the Guildhall, as well as being available online at www.kingston.gov.uk/planning/nkcbrief. Drop-in sessions at the North Kingston Centre have been arranged for 14 and 16 July when officers will be available to answer questions.

8. The consultation responses will be collated and reported back to this Committee and the Development Control Committee for information in September, together with proposed amendments to the Brief. These together with the finalised brief for adoption will be reported to the Executive on 29 September 2010.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

9. There are no direct financial implications arising out of the draft Brief and the consultation.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS

10. There will be no direct implications as a result of this report. There would be direct environmental implications arising out of the redevelopment of the NKC site for a new school which the draft Brief seeks to identify and address.

NETWORK IMPLICATIONS

11. There will be no direct implications as a result of this report. There would be potential network implications arising out redevelopment, which the draft Brief seeks to identify and mitigate.

EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS

12. There are no equality impact assessment implications arising specifically from this report. The draft Brief is fully compatible with the Council’s equality policies and equality impact assessment (EQIA) will be undertaken prior to the finalisation of the Brief for adoption.

Background papers : held by Author of report: Pat Loxton 0208 547 5420 [email protected]

1. Executive report and Minute – 24 June 2008 2. Executive report and Minute – 9 December 2008 3. Executive report and Minute – 21 April 2009 4. Executive report and Minute – 29 September 2009 5. Executive report and Minute – 9 March 2010 6. Executive report and Minute – 31 March 2010

Planning and Urban Design Brief Consultation Draft June 2010 Environmental Services - Planning

New Secondary School at North Kingston Centre C4 C5

2 Contents Plans 1. Background and Purpose of the Brief Plan 1: Location Plan 2. Status of the Brief and how it fits into the development process Plan 2: Site Plan 3. Consultation arrangements Plan 3: Context Plan 4. The Site and the Surrounding Area Plan 4: Building parameters 5. Planning policy context 6. Planning objectives and development principles Appendices 7. Site Constraints and Opportunities 1. Sequence of Events 2008-2010 leading up to the preparation of this Brief 8. Planning and Development Guidance

2. Relevant London Plan and UDP Policies C6 • Use of site • Design and Layout • Building parameters • Trees and Landscaping • Sustainable Travel • Car use, parking and highway impact • Sustainable design and energy • Flood risk, water supply and drainage 9. Next steps

3 London Borough of Richmond Ham Richmond Road A307

Richmond Park C7

River Thames

North Kingston Centre Kingston Town Plan 1: Location Centre

North Kingston Centre Kingston Railway Roy Thompson Station Service Director (Environment and Sustainability) Environmental Services Directorate Guidhall 2, Kingston upon Thames, KT1 1EU

Operator: FB

Date: 03/06/2010

© Crown copyright. All rights reserved. The Royal Borough of Kingston. Licence No. 100019285 (2010). Dwn: 0610_246 1:12,000 4 1. Background and Purpose of the Brief

1.1 This Brief provides a framework to year 7 pupils (11 year olds) in 2015 and guide the preparation and assessment of would take seven years to reach capacity development proposals for a new secondary in 2022. Sports pitches would be provided school (11-18 year olds) on the North off site. It is the intention of the Authority Kingston Centre site. The Council has a to relocate existing North Kingston Centre legal responsibility to provide sufficient users/uses. school places in the borough for all children 1.5 Detailed planning proposals for the new who need a school place. The need for a school are expected to come forward in new secondary school arises from: 2011, when there will be further public • the need to provide additional school consultation. places to meet increasing demand

1.3 A land search for sites suitable for a new 1.6 The provision of a new secondary school is C8 • the lack of a non-selective community secondary school identified just two part of the Transforming Kingston Schools school in the Kingston area resulting in potential options - North Kingston Centre (TKS) Programme, which comprises the children having to travel out of the area with some associated sports and post-16 national Building Schools for the Future to school, increasing community pressure facilities at the Hawker Centre. Subsequent (BSF) and the Primary Capital Programmes, to provide a local school and the need to consultation in 2009 revealed that 52% of which aim to transform primary, special address this situation. respondents supported the North Kingston needs and secondary education. The overall Centre and 44% supported the Hawker Programme objectives also apply to the 1.2 There is an increasing demand for places in Centre. Due to a number of site specific new secondary school, are to: Kingston’s primary schools, resulting from and planning constraints the Hawker Centre a significant increase in the birth rate, new • refurbish, rebuild, remodel and expand was subsequently discounted for use other housing and economic factors, which the the school estate than external sports facilities. Council is meeting by expanding existing • provide additional school places schools and providing a new primary 1.4 The North Kingston Centre site, currently school. From 2015 onwards, the current in use as an education and training centre, is • diversify schools increase of primary school pupils will be well located in relation to the new school’s • improve education outcomes and narrow at an age to transfer to secondary schools. catchment area and thus well placed in differences in attainment To accommodate these pupils the Borough terms of being able to maximise walking and will need to increase the provision through cycling to school, and reducing distances • create more flexible, accessible the creation of a new secondary school and travelled to schools. Subject to due process, accommodation for use throughout the expansion of local non-selective schools that including the need for planning permission, year/evenings/weekends by schools, young serve the Kingston area. the school would be planned to open for people and the wider community 5 1.8 The Authority’s ‘Vision’ for the new school is founded on ‘five big ideas’: • Personalisation of learning will be at the heart of the school • Learners will play a prominent role in shaping the school • The school will be at the heart of its community • The school will share its excellence widely • improve the sustainability of school • The school will maximise the use of space buildings and reduce carbon emissions and time and energy use C9 The school will emphasise 4 themes: • optimise the use of outside spaces • Community • enhance the range of services/activities • Aspiration provided, contribute to the wider Council • Respect initiative to deliver services in a more co- • Endeavour ordinated way, secure local investment and rationalise assets. 1.7 The Council is looking to provide a new state of the art secondary school and this Brief requires: • high quality innovative design that enhances its surroundings • sustainable school journeys (walking, cycling, public transport) through robust site and travel planning in order to reduce car dependency and adverse impact on the local area and the highway network.

6 2. Status of the Brief and how it fits into the Development Process

2.1 The preparation and adoption of a Planning pre-application discussions through to the Brief for the site, involving public and submission and determination of a planning stakeholder consultation on this draft Brief, application. The adopted Brief will be a will provide the planning framework to material consideration in the determination guide the preparation and assessment of of any future planning application for a new development proposals. secondary school. 2.2 The Brief will act as informal planning 2.5 The sequence of events leading up to guidance, supplementing statutory the decision to prepare a Planning and development plan policies, as set out Development Brief for this site is set out in in the RBK Unitary Development Plan Appendix 1. (UDP) First Alteration 2005 (as amended in 2007 and 2008) and the London Plan C10 2008 (consolidated with Alterations since 2004) and other relevant planning guidance (including national planning policy statements). 2.3 This Brief: identifies site constraints and opportunities; sets out the planning policy context, planning objectives, development principles, guidelines for the future development of the site, including design criteria and building parameters, together with planning and access requirements for the planning application stage. 2.4 The Brief will inform and guide the preparation of development proposals and will be used, alongside other relevant planning policy documents, in the assessment of development proposals for the new school throughout all stages of the planning process from feasibility and 7 C11

8 3. Consultation

3.1 Public and stakeholder consultation will take place on this draft Brief for a six week period from 21 June to the end of July. This will involve publicising the Brief through: • The distribution of leaflets within the north Kingston area and the provision of leaflets at local schools, the North Kingston Centre, libraries and the Guildhall • online information: www.kingston.gov.uk/planning/nkcbrief C12 • exhibitions at the North Kingston Centre, Kingston Library and the Guildhall • letters to statutory organisations and local interest groups, the North Kingston Centre and its user groups • an on-line and hard copy questionnaire • items on the Brief at the Kingston Town Neighbourhood Planning Sub-Committee on 21 July and the Development Control Committee on 22 July 3.2 The consultation responses will be collated and reported to the Kingston Town and Development Control Committees in September, together with proposed amendments to the Brief. These together with the finalised Brief for adoption will be reported to the Executive on 29 September 2010. 9 AD

RO

E RICHMOND Tiffin Girls' School V

DRI

EY

WOLS All Weather Pitch

Pedestrian Path Existing

Vehicle C13 Access

Tennis Court ALBANY PAR K ROA D

Parking Spaces Parking

Existing Vehicle Access

North Kingston Centre Plan 2 Fern Hill Primary School Existing Site Layout

North Kingston Centre

Roy Thompson Service Director (Planning and Transportation) Environmental Services Directorate Guidhall 2, Kingston upon Thames, KT1 1EU

Operator: FB

Date: 03/06/2010

© Crown copyright. All rights reserved. The Royal Borough of Kingston. Licence No. 100019285 (2010). Dwn: 0610_245 1:1,250

10 4. The Site and the Surrounding Area

4.1 The North Kingston Centre (NKC) is an an Adult Education Facility with a crèche/ 4.4 To the rear of the NKC site is a hard educational site on Richmond Road just nursery, Pupil Referral Unit, local history landscaped area used for tennis courts and under a mile north of Kingston town centre centre, borough archive, Disability parking. Beyond this, outside the site, is a and Kingston Railway Station. It adjoins Discrimination Act (DDA) training centre private rear access road serving houses in Tiffin Girls School to the north and Fern and community transport base. The site Wolsey Drive. Hill Primary School to the south and forms (approx.1.6ha including the shared parking 4.5 There are two mature trees on the grass part of this larger established education area on the frontage) is flat and rectangular, verge outside the site (Red Norway Maple ‘campus’. The schools are within the extending from Richmond Road across and Horse Chestnut) and a number of trees suburban predominantly residential area of to Wolsey Drive housing in an east-west along the Richmond Road frontage of the north Kingston. To the rear of the sites are orientation. site which are important as they define the houses in Wolsey Drive which is part of 4.3 The NKC comprises the main teaching boundary and have amenity value enhancing

the residential Tudor Estate. To the west of C14 block which is a two storey brick building the public realm and the streetscape. the site (approx. 200m away) are the River with a pitched tiled roof set around a A Willow tree close to the Fern Hill Thames and the riverside which are within grassed quadrangle on the central third of school entrance also has merit. Within an area of special character. the site. Around it are a number of mostly the landscaped area in front of the NKC 4.2 The North Kingston Centre site is single storey outbuildings (permanent building there are around 20 trees, including owned by the Authority and is used and demountable). The main building was hornbeam, whitebeam and ornamentals, as an education and training centre built as a secondary school in the 1930s. most of which are small, young trees. There accommodating a range of uses including Between the main building and Richmond are no trees within the site which are Road is an access road and grassed landscaped area and a parking and drop off area which was laid out when Fern Hill Primary School was built in the 1997 and was part of the planning permission . This provides 53 parking spaces – 19 for Fern Hill school staff, 19 for visitor/parent parking and 15 spaces for drop off/pick up. The shared area is for use by Fern Hill during school hours and for both NKC and Fern Hill outside school hours.

11 TUDO R D RI Hawker NS VE RDE A Centre G L HOLL NHIL W R O FE L Y S BU E CARDINA Y S

DRIVE H ROA ALLOTMENT GARDENS, Tiffin Girls' CARDINAL AVENUE L AVEN D

School UE Wolse

R I C y

HM D riv O ND e TUDOR ESTATE

R LASC O A D TIFFIN GIRLS SCHOOL PLAYING FIELD C15

E LANE

R RIVERSIDE E M NORTH CA CH

LAT

A

LB Fern Hill

ANY Primary School LATCHMERE ROAD ME RECREATION GROUND

North Kingston Centre WS Plan 3: Context ROAD ON ROAD T RE Trees along the frontage RLS New DU STUDL Poor quality pedestrian path Flats LATCHME A North Kingston Centre U/C ND RO Conservation Area THAMES POLICY AD AREA OAD Local Area of Special Character A R L LO Local Open Spaces River B TH A W ALBANS NY T MOL Thames ER E S AL THE KE PARK R HA S Thames Policy Area B TAUNTON AN M ROA E Pelican Crossing RICHMOND A Y EP OA ROAD CA RLE Roy Thompson D D Service Director (Planning and Transportation) GARDEN ROAD Environmental Services Directorate Guidhall 2, Kingston upon Thames, KT1 1EU

Operator: FB S Date: 09/06/2010

Dwn: 0610_246 1:3,500 © Crown copyright. All rights reserved. The Royal Borough of Kingston. Licence No. 100019285 (2010).

12 subject to tree preservation orders (TPOs). with the exception of the short stretch Kingston Railway Station (on the Waterloo/ between houses at nos. 91 and 93 Wolsey Kingston/Richmond loop line and the 4.6 The site fronts onto Richmond Road Drive. Waterloo to Shepperton branch line) is just (A307), a secondary road and cycle route under a mile away. providing the main route between Kingston 4.8 The NKC site is served by the no. 65 town centre and Kingston Bridge and Ham/ bus service, which is the main bus route 4.9 Tiffin Girls’ School to the north of the Richmond town centre to the north. Access using Richmond Road and links Ealing via NKC site was constructed in the 1950s and into the site from Richmond Road is via Richmond to Kingston town centre. The comprises 3-4 storey buildings in traditional two vehicular and pedestrian/cycle access no. 65 serves a number of schools including red brick set within extensive grounds. The points. There are two traffic light controlled Tiffin Girls, Fern Hill, Grey Court at Ham buildings are sited in the north east ‘quarter’ pelican crossings on Richmond Road, one in the LB Richmond and Tiffin Boys and of the site close to the rear of houses in to the north of Tiffin Girls and one outside Kingston Grammar School on the edge of Fern Hill Gardens and Wolsey Drive. The Fern Hill Primary School. Existing pedestrian Kingston town centre, as well as serving school’s all weather pitches and grassed flows by pupils and parents/carers around retail and employment areas. During peak areas form an L shape between the school Tiffin Girls and Fern Hill are high at school hours this service with 7 buses per hour buildings, Richmond Road and the NKC. C16 arrival and finishing times causing crowding operates at close to capacity. The site is also Along the Richmond Road frontage is a along the pavements. served by the K5, 671 (Chessington) and linear parking and drop off area with space 801 (Hinchley Wood SCC service) school for 43 cars. Part of the main school building 4.7 A 1.5m wide pedestrian ‘path’ runs between buses. Additionally, Tiffin Girls lay on school was rebuilt in contemporary style (3 storeys Richmond Road and Wolsey Drive, buses provided by a local coach company. plus roof projections) following a serious separating the NKC site and Tiffin Girls’ The no. 371 bus service stops about 800m fire in 2005. The average height of the three School. The path, which is unlit and in poor north of the site at Ham Shopping Parade. storey school wings is 11-12 metres, with condition, is on land in Council ownership,

13 the roof projections on the 3 storey rebuild 4.11. The residential area surrounding the NKC 4.12 The north Kingston area is largely flat with reaching 14m and the 4 storey central is characterised by two and three storey the land rising up to the elevated position of entrance building 15 m. houses with front and rear gardens. To Richmond Park some 700m to the east. the south and west the character is Late 4.10 Fern Hill Primary School was constructed Victorian, two and three storey detached in 1997 on land formerly part of the North and semi-detached, whilst to the east and Kingston Centre. It comprises a 1-2 storey north is the Tudor Estate Local Area of contemporary building with outdoor Special Character dating from the 1930s, space to the front and rear. It is a 2 form characterised by two storey semi-detached entry primary school with pre-school and short terraces of six houses. The nursery provision, which is proposed to Richmond Road frontage has a mix of be expanded to 3 forms of entry from styles of houses and flats, with 1-3 storey September 2011, to meet the pressing need properties opposite the site, a 4 storey for additional school places. The expansion

block of flats (4th floor within the pitched C17 proposal involves a 2 storey extension to roofspace) nearing completion on the the rear of the existing building set along corner of Albany Park Road and 4-5 storey the boundary with the NKC. Along the flats some 300m to the north of the site. Richmond Road frontage of the NKC is a Fronting the river in Albany Park Road are shared parking and drop off/pick up area three 9 storey blocks of flats dating from provided when the school was built (see the 1960s. para.4.3).

14 5. Planning Policy Context National Planning Guidance meet additional demands or changes in • Encouraging strong, sustainable 5.1 National planning policy guidance is set provision. The identification of suitable communities – including through out in Planning Policy Statements (PPS) sites should take account of policies to protecting residential amenity and helping and Planning Policy Guidance notes protect open space and ensure that to secure appropriate educational, medical (PPGs). Of particular relevance is PPS 1: sites are accessible by public transport, and recreational facilities throughout the Delivering Sustainable Development and as well as by foot. School facilities can borough. the associated Supplement on Planning and also provide venues for a range of other • Safeguarding and enhancing the existing Climate Change. community based activities. Where environment for future generations – possible, schools should look to make including requiring new development Development Plan arrangements outside schools to use and alterations to existing buildings to 5.2 The development plan for the NKC site is other provision such as sports, training incorporate a high standard of design,

the Mayor of London’s 2008 London Plan and meeting facilities, where these are C18 which throughout its life will enhance its and the RBK Unitary Development Plan currently not being used during the school surrounding environment. ‘saved’ policies. day. • Practising equal opportunities when Other relevant London Plan policies are The London Plan preparing and implementing planning listed in Appendix 2. 5.3 The London Plan 2008 (consolidated with policies to take account of the varied needs within the borough, which includes Alterations since 2004) forms part of the RBK Unitary Development Plan 2005 young people. Development Plan for the borough. The (as amended in 2007 and 2008) Mayor of London has published a draft 5.4 The 2005 UDP was amended in 2007 and 5.6 The UDP recognises that with the limited replacement London Plan, which is subject 2008 when some policies were deleted and land available for development in the to examination in the next few months. the remaining policies were ‘saved’. borough, it is not possible to meet every London Plan Policy 3A.24 is of particular want or need. As well as using the planning relevance to this Brief: 5.5 The UDP identifies four objectives for land process to promote the four objectives set use planning in the borough as follows: • Policy 3A.24 Education facilities - urges out above, where there are development Boroughs to: provide a criteria based • Encouraging new development to be opportunities, the UDP sets out the approach to the provision of different sustainable – including by making efficient Council’s priorities. Included within the High types of education facilities and the use or reuse of previously developed Priority category are: schools, open land, expansion of existing facilities; achieve or ‘brownfield’ land and by reducing affordable housing and other community full use of schools in the evenings and reliance on the car and promoting public services. The retention of existing housing at weekends; safeguard land already in transport, cycling and walking. is also a priority and it is recognised that education use and identify new sites to there will be some specific locations and 15 Neighbourhoods where a different local Area of Special Character (UDP Policy • a safe, healthy and strong Kingston priority need should be met and sites with BE1) also covered by the Thames Policy special attributes where other uses are Area designation (UDP Policy Ol14) is The emerging Local Development particularly suitable. approximately 100m to the west of the site. Framework Core Strategy for RBK 5.12 The Local Development framework will 5.7 UDP Policy CS1 New Community Facilities 5.9 Richmond Park which is 700m to the east comprise a series of planning documents and Extension of Existing Community of the NKC site is an important historic and that will replace the Unitary Development Facilities is especially relevant to this Brief. natural area of open space being a Grade Plan and guide development and change in CS1 refers to education, social or other 1 Park in the national Register of Historic the borough over the next 20 years. The community services and indicates that Parks and Gardens, Metropolitan Open Core Strategy is a very important part of proposals to improve or extend existing Land, a Site of Special Scientific Interest and the LDF as it will set the overall planning facilities will normally be acceptable a European Site of Nature Conservation framework for the borough and deliver provided that: Interest under the Habitat Directive (in the spatial aspects of the Kingston Plan. respect of stag beetles). In view of the latter,

• adequate public transport is available from This Core Strategy is currently at Preferred C19 the school proposal is likely to require all parts of the catchment area Options Stage and consultation took place ‘Screening for Appropriate Assessment’ from December 2009-January 2010. • traffic conditions, residential amenities under the Habitat Regulations. and environmental considerations are not 5.13 The Core Strategy is aligned with the 5.10 The site is outside the key view/panorama adversely affected three Kingston Plan themes and one of 24 from Richmond Park Thatched House objectives is to ensure that sufficient school Other relevant UDP policies are set out in Lodge towards Kingston Bridge and the places are available for all age groups Appendix 2. Guildhall in Kingston town centre (UDP Policy BE1 and Kingston town centre Area 5.14 Preferred Policy TP27 Schools states that 5.8 The NKC site not within a conservation Action Plan 2008 Policy K9). the Council will facilitate improvements to area (though there are conservation areas the school estate and a permanent increase to the west along the river (Riverside North The Kingston Plan in the number of school places to meet Conservation Area) and south (Richmond 5.11 The 2008 Kingston Plan (the Community increasing demand through the expansion Road Conservation Area) (UDP Policy BE3). Plan) prepared by the Kingston Strategic of existing schools and the provision of It adjoins the residential Tudor Estate Local Partnership has three themes as follows, new schools. The North Kingston Centre Area of Special Character to the east (UDP underpinned by 10 objectives: is identified as a potential site for a new Policy BE2). There are no Listed Buildings, secondary school. The draft Policy sets Buildings of Townscape Merit or trees with • a sustainable Kingston, where the out criteria against which proposals for Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) on the environment is protected and enhanced new schools and school expansion will be site. The site is within Low Risk Flood Zone • a prosperous and inclusive Kingston assessed. 1 (UDP Policy OL18). The Thames-side

16 6. Planning Objectives and Development Principles

6.1 Planning objectives and principles for outdoor space • Reducing carbon emissions through development proposals to achieve are set improved energy performance and • buildings and spaces that relate well to out below under the three headings of: conservation and use of low carbon their surroundings and safeguard the technologies • Design and Layout amenity of adjoining residents/properties and minimise disturbance and intrusion • Minimising waste and avoiding use of • Environment and Sustainability (visual intrusion, loss of outlook and pollutants • Transport, Access and Connectivity privacy) and • Protecting and enhancing green spaces These will be used as criteria against which • facilitate wider community use and habitats for plants and wildlife to assess future development proposals. • avoid or minimise loss of green open • Providing a healthy environment space

Design and Layout • Meeting the needs of the community C20 6.2 High quality innovative design that inspires, • maximise the contribution of trees and • Buildings designed to achieve a target enhances the character of the locality and landscaping and opportunities for planting BREEAM rating of ‘excellent’, with a provides buildings and spaces that are fit for and habitat creation and avoid the loss of minimum rating of ‘very good’ purpose, lift the spirits of users and are built trees and habitats, wherever possible. to last with a simple palette of attractive Transport, Access and Connectivity materials that are durable and easily Environment and Sustainability 6.5 Robust site and travel planning to: maintained. 6.4 A sustainable approach to design, construction, environmental servicing • reduce car journeys to the site 6.3 Good use of the site to provide: through: • minimise adverse impact on local roads • a legible and accessible layout that gives • Good organisation of internal and and highway safety from congestion and priority to pedestrians and the less mobile external spaces – legible and accessible parking whilst addressing the needs of all users • Flexible design that allows for wider • limit/control on-site parking • attractive buildings and grounds that are school and community use throughout welcoming to the school and the local • promote sustainable modes – walking, the year and is adaptable to allow short community, whilst providing adequate cycling and public transport term changes to layout and use and security accommodate longer term changing needs • provide pedestrian and cycle friendly • well designed external spaces – offering design with good access points and • Passive design to create good a variety of different settings for leisure, connections to walking and cycling routes. environmental conditions with natural sport and learning to make better use of daylight and ventilation 17 C21

18 7. Constraints and Opportunities

7.1 This section draws on sections 4, 5 and 6 comprises residential and education uses • the site is located on Richmond Road, a and summarises key policy issues and site’s – with 2/3 storey suburban housing and secondary road and a bus route providing constraints and opportunities (See also Plan houses and flats up to 4 storeys along good north-south access, including to 3 on page 12). Richmond Road; two nearby conservation Kingston town centre areas; and adjoining schools with the 3 /4 7.2 Key policy issues are summarised as follows: • measures to improve pedestrian and cycle storey Tiffin Girls School set in extensive routes and crossings, provide adequate • safeguarding land already in education use grounds, parts of which are protected cycle parking, robust school travel for education facilities to meet additional local open space and the 1/2 storey Fern planning and staggering school starting demands and ensuring sufficient school Hill Primary School times to reduce the impact of the school places are available to meet the demands • the need to safeguard residential amenity on transport networks and the local area of all age groups • the location of the NKC next to two • the occupation of the new school and • safeguarding the environment and C22 existing schools – Tiffin Girls with 4 the increase in pupil numbers at Fern Hill requiring a high standard of design that Forms of Entry (FE) and 840 pupils and school would happen incrementally over will enhance its surroundings Fern Hill due to expand from 420 pupils a period of 10 years from 2011 to 2022, • ensuring sustainable school buildings (2FE) to 630 pupils (3FE), which puts a allowing time to assess travel patterns and that contribute to a reduction in carbon strain on transport infrastructure (roads, impact, achieve school travel plan targets emissions and energy use buses, footways) at school starting and and address issues that may arise finishing times and means that transport • ensuring good accessibility by public • for high quality innovative design transport, on foot and by bike issues need to be addressed to reduce the impact on transport infrastructure and • to benefit from synergies resulting from • achieving full use of school facilities for adverse effects on the surrounding area. the ‘campus’ setting adjacent to two the community in the evenings and at existing schools weekends 7.4 Opportunities • to provide for flexible accommodation • the site is in education use within 7.3 Constraints suitable for community use an ‘education campus’ and there are • the size of site – 1.6ha is constrained opportunities for more effective use of • for reinforcing tree planting and for a large 8 Forms of Entry secondary the NKC site landscaping along the Richmond Road school. But, allowing for the main sports frontage and within the site pitches to be located off-site, it is within • the site is well located in relation to its • to improve the existing pedestrian route government guidelines likely catchment area which means that a high proportion of pupils should be able from Richmond Road to Wolsey Drive • the need to protect and enhance the to walk or cycle to school through widening, upgrading and lighting character of the surrounding area which 19 Tiffin Girls' School

m 25

5m 5. EASTERN 0-3 STOREYS CENTRAL 0-4 STOREYS GROUND + 3 STOREYS C23 m 50

CENTRAL 0m WESTERN 0-3 STOREYS 8 0-3 STOREYS GROUND + 2 STOREYS m 10 m 10

North Kingston Centre m 40 Plan 4: Building Parameters m 50 Building Envelope 0m 8 No Building Zone

Roy Thompson Service Director (Planning and Transportation) Environmental Services Directorate Guidhall 2, Kingston upon Thames, KT1 1EU

Operator: FB

Date: 02/06/2010

© Crown copyright. All rights reserved. The Royal Borough of Kingston. Licence No. 100019285 (2010). Dwn: 0610_246 1:1,500

20 8. Planning and Development Guidance

8.1 This section sets out planning and 8.4 The redevelopment of the site for a soft informal social space, games courts development guidance based on the key secondary school will result in a significant and educational/ecological habitat, whilst development principles, taking account of intensification of use of the site which will providing a high quality school building(s) educational requirements, planning policy have an effect on the surrounding area. The within the massing parameters set out in and the site’s opportunities and constraints. purpose of this Brief is to provide a planning paras.8.10-8.18. The site area is nearly framework to guide the preparation of 1.6 hectares (approximately 190metres by Use of the Site development proposals. In particular 85metres) including the shared frontage 8.2 The North Kingston Centre building was it provides guidance on urban design, parking area. The internal floorspace originally built and used as a secondary sustainability and transport, with the aim of required for an 8 form entry secondary school. Its current use as a non-residential reducing and mitigating the potential impact. school is just over 14,000sqm, plus there education and training centre falls within are outdoor requirements for informal

Planning Use Class D1 (Non-Residential Design and Layout social space, games courts and educational C24 Institution), which is the same Use Class as 8.5 The main access to the site (for pedestrians, habitat amounting to around 9,500sqm. the proposed secondary school. Planning cyclists and vehicles) will continue to be Opportunities to use the roofspace for permission would not be required for a from Richmond Road. This will need to social space or habitat creation (green change from the NKC’s current use to a take account of the existing access to the roofs) should be investigated, subject to secondary school. The principle of using Tiffin Girls’ and the shared parking and there being no adverse impact on the the site for a secondary school is therefore drop off area for Fern Hill School and the surrounding area. acceptable. Planning permission would of NKC, along the Richmond Road frontage. course be required for the redevelopment A comprehensive approach to access and Building Parameters of the site and the erection of new parking along the frontage of these sites is 8.7 Taking account of Sections 4, 5, 6 and 7 in buildings. required in order to aviod congestion and particular: the need to safeguard residential maintain highway safety. The provision of a amenity, reflect the character of the area 8.3 At present, there is no community combined parking area to serve Fern Hill, and achieve a satisfactory relationship with secondary school serving the Kingston area. the new school and community use of both adjoining schools and surrounding residential Tiffin Girls’ School, adjoining the NKC and schools has some merit, subject to suitable properties, this Brief identifies areas suitable Tiffin Boys’, on the edge of Kingston town car park management arrangements and for building, together with height and centre are both selective schools. The staggered school start and finishing times. massing parameters. These guidelines are nearest community schools are Coombe based on an analysis of the character of the Girls in New Malden, Hollyfield in Surbiton, 8.6 The site layout should respond to the site and the townscape of the surrounding Grey Court School and Teddington School design and layout objectives set out in area, in terms of uses, heights and distances in the borough of Richmond. section 6 and aim to maximise the provision between buildings. They aim to inform of useable outdoor space for: hard and 21 and guide the preparation of designs for between houses and school buildings are encourage walking and cycling. The set back the school buildings, which will need to 38m for the 3m high school building and will also need to take account of the need demonstrate that they will create a high 43m for the 10m high school building. for Fire Brigade access along any northern quality environment and enhance their elevation. The 5m path could cater for this 8.10 This Brief aims to define a ‘footprint’ or surroundings. need subject to construction/surfacing being building ‘envelope’ within the site that is suitable for use by emergency vehicles. 8.8 The distances between building frontages suitable for school buildings (though not all along Richmond Road increases this area would be built upon) and ‘no build’ 8.12 Along the Richmond Road frontage of the progressively away from the ‘urban grain’ zones around the periphery of the site that site, a 10m wide ‘no build’ zone should be of Kingston town centre towards the more are suitable for parking, access, landscaping maintained from the site boundary, in order suburban character of the north Kingston and open space (informal social space, protect the mature trees on the grass verge area. At its southern end in Kingston town habitat, outdoor sports and recreation), as in front of the site and the line of trees centre distances between building frontages shown on Plan 4. along the site boundary, which provide average 20m, increasing to 30m from Kings important visual amenity and contribute to Road northwards and to 40m north of ‘No build’ zones the streetscape and biodiversity. C25 Tiffin Girls’. For the existing schools and 8.11 Along the northern boundary of the site 8.13 At the rear of the site which adjoins houses the NKC, the buildings are set back from which adjoins the Tiffin all weather sports in Wolsey Drive – a distance of 50m should the Richmond Road frontage, with 70-80m pitches and recreation space, the building be maintained between the new school between building frontages for Fern Hill, footprint of the new school should be building and the main rear facades of the 90-100m for NKC and 90-130m for Tiffin set back from the boundary by 5.5m houses in order to safeguard residential Girls’. The mainly residential properties (3.5m+2m) to allow the existing pedestrian amenity and reflect local character. This along Richmond Road range from 1-5 route (on land owned by RBK) to be equates to a 25m wide ‘no build’ zone from storeys (2.5m-12.5m ground to eaves widened from 1.5m to 5.0m to provide an the site boundary and will provide space for height). School storey heights average 3.8m improved and shared footway/cycleway, tree and shrub planting and landscaping to per storey compared to 2.5m per storey for (subject to the necessary processes) plus an enhance visual amenity and biodiversity and residential. additional 2.0m allowance/building set back provide for educational habitat. at ground level to provide a satisfactory 8.9 Characteristic back to back distances relationship between the widened route 8.14 Along the southern boundary of the site, between mainly two storey houses in and the new school. It may be acceptable the existing NKC building line forms the residential roads in north Kingston have for upper floors to overhang this 2.0m set southernmost extent for any new building in been assessed and range from 30-60m. back, subject to detailed testing of designs. order to provide sufficient space for access In Wolsey Drive, the distance between The widened route will improve access (10m minimum) between the two schools, the rear wall of houses and Tiffin Girls’ from Wolsey Drive and the residential for fire and maintenance access etc. and in school buildings (3.6-5.9m high) is 30-31m. catchment area for the school and thus order to achieve a satisfactory relationship In Fernhill Gardens, respective distances 22 between Fern Hill and the new school. 3 and 4 storeys – up to 15m from ground building. level to the top of any building, subject to Building Zones testing. The key issue is the impact on Fern Trees and Landscaping 8.15 Within the area identified as suitable for Hill and Tiffin Girls’. Maximising the building 8.19 There are no trees subject to TPOs building, there are three zones: set back from the southern boundary has within the site. Existing tree planting and advantages as it would allow the provision landscaping along the Richmond Road • Western - Richmond Road frontage of south facing informal social space and frontage of the site contributes to the • Central games courts. Development up to 3 storeys streetscene, visual amenity and biodiversity (up to 12m) would be appropriate within and should be protected and reinforced. • Eastern - Rear of site the southern part of this zone in order to This will require a buffer zone extending 8.16 Western: Richmond Road frontage - provide a satisfactory relationship with Fern around 2m beyond the canopy line shown outside the 10m tree protection ‘no build’ Hill, which is 1-2 storeys high with a 2 storey on the Tree Survey, which equates to a 10m zone, the key issue is the bulk and mass of extension proposed along the boundary. ‘no build’ zone from the site boundary along

the school building and its relationship and The northern part of this central zone the frontage of the site (as referred to in C26 impact on the townscape and properties offers the opportunity for the tallest part of para.6.12). The willow tree adjacent to the in Richmond Road. School development the building – up to 4 storeys (16m), subject entrance to the Fern Hill School building has up to 3 storeys (up to 12m high) could to testing of the relationship of the building merit and should be retained and protected be acceptable, subject to detailed testing to its surroundings and view assessments to as part of the mature setting of that part of designs. Desirable distances between show the impact in longer range views. For of the site. Elsewhere, if trees are removed existing building frontages on the west side comparison purposes, the prevailing height as part of the redevelopment proposals, of Richmond Road and school development of the main Tiffin Girls’ School buildings is 3 the layout should include provision for two are 40m for development up to 2 storeys storeys (11-12m) with the entrance building replacement trees for each tree lost (UDP high and 50m for development up to 3 and the roof projections on the recent Policy BE9) and associated space to allow storeys high, subject to detailed designs and rebuild reaching 4 storeys or around 15m. for their proper development. assessment of impact. New development 8.18 Eastern: rear of the site – close proximity to 8.20 There are significant opportunities for tree should provide a high quality frontage with residential means that safeguarding amenity planting and landscaping within the site, appropriate articulation and design features and local character are key issues. Outside in particular along the rear boundary with to break up the massing and there may the ‘no build ‘zone, school development residential properties in Wolsey Drive. be opportunities for landmark features to up to 3 storeys (up to 12m high) would A landscaping scheme will be required as provide identity and legibility. be acceptable, subject to testing. New part of any planning application submission 8.17 Central: the centre of the site is located development should provide high quality and pre-application discussion and planting well away from residential properties and elevations with appropriate articulation and proposals should be incorporated in a has the potential for development up to design to break up the massing of the new cohesive layout and landscape structure.

23 Boundary Treatment improvements to walking and cycling commitment to the STP, details of 8.21 Appropriate boundary treatment will be facilities, potentially an increase in bus mitigation measures and modal split required around the site taking account of capacity and staggered school start and targets, how the STP will be implemented the need to provide attractive buildings finishing times, so as to maximise walking and incorporated into the operation of and grounds that are welcoming to the and cycling to the school and minimise car the School school and the local community, safeguard use. • annual updating of the STP and residential amenity and enhance local monitoring of travel patterns to determine character, security considerations, tree School Travel Plan (STP) Requirements whether targets are being met protection and landscaping. and Targets 8.24 The preparation of a robust draft School • assurance that the School will set aside Sustainable Travel Travel Plan (taking account of Transport adequate funding and staff resources 8.22 A secondary school with 8 forms of entry for London [TfL] Guidance on STPs and to implement the travel plan and its would have around 1680 pupils and 160 travel plan best practice) will be required associated measures and targets

staff and would generate a significant to accompany any planning application for C27 • to taking action if STP targets are not number of trips, in the order of 1800+ trips the redevelopment of the site for a new being met and to address any transport in the morning and at school finishing times, secondary school. This should set out how issues that arise as a result of the plus trips associated with school visitors and it is proposed to manage travel to the site, development community use of the school. The current maximising opportunities for sustainable NKC generates an average of 300 trips in travel (walking, cycling and public transport) 8.26 The following STP targets for modal split/ the morning, 250 in the afternoon and 300 and minimising trips to the site by car in proportion of trips made by different travel in the evening from its current uses, which order to mitigate the potential adverse modes are considered to be achievable: are spread throughout the day and the impact of the school on transport networks. Pupils: evening. The proposed expansion of Fern The following paragraphs detail some of Hill Primary School from 2FE to 3FE with an the measures that should be included in the o 50% on foot additional 210 pupils and associated staff will STP. o 15% by bicycle also generate additional school trips on the 8.25 The draft STP will act as a framework o 30% bus local transport network. for the ongoing management and o 5% by car 8.23 In order to manage travel to and from implementation of the full travel plan by Staff: the new school and minimise potential the School and should include the following o 10% on foot adverse impact on the surrounding area, commitments: the highway and public transport networks, o 20% by bicycle • the submission of a full travel plan, at a number of measures will be required o 15% by bus/train least 6 months prior to the opening including: a robust School Travel Plan, of the School setting out: the School’s o 55% by car 24 Bus Travel is located centrally within its intended • consideration of new cycle routes in roads 8.27 The new school is located on the no. 65 catchment area. For cycling, several borough to the north and east of the site that bus route that links Kingston and Ealing via schools have achieved cycling levels of 10- could utilise the new foot/cycle way from Richmond every 8-9 minutes (7 per hour). 15% and a minimum target for cycling of Wolsey Drive The bus will be a convenient and attractive 10% of pupils and an aspirational target • provision of adequate levels of cycle method of travel to school for pupils living of 15% are considered reasonable and parking on site for pupils, staff and visitors along the route and outside convenient achievable, especially in view of the flat - around 300 cycle parking spaces should walking distance. This will be particularly topography of the area and the intended be provided, which should be of high so with the existing provision of free bus catchment area. quality, covered/weatherproof, secure travel for the under 16’s, though it should 8.29 Safe and convenient access to the school for from theft and conveniently located in be noted that this may not continue into pedestrians and cyclists is essential in order relation to school access points. Cycle the future. Average modal share of pupil to facilitate the strong culture of walking equipment lockers should be provided, trips by bus for borough secondary schools and cycling required to meet these targets. preferably close to the the cycle parking

is about 38%, but can reach 54%. Capacity C28 Pedestrian flows by pupils and parents/ analysis shows that the existing bus route • measures by the school through the carers are already high around Tiffin Girls’ could suffer from overcrowding as a result STP to support and encourage cycling and Fern Hill at school starting and finishing of the opening of the new school unless: including: providing free advanced cycle times causing crowding along the pavement. training (bikeability level three), bicycle • bus capacity is increased to accommodate Measures are required to address this maintenance classes, lead rides to the site additional trips (through working with TfL and to accommodate the new school for new pupils at the start of term, cycle London Buses or through private school without exacerbating the situation. This will route planning and after-school bike clubs. coach provision) require improvements to existing highway infrastructure and walking/cycling facilities, • school start and finish times are Car Use, Parking and Highway Impact plus additional measures, funded as part of staggered 8.30 The level of provision of on-site car parking the provision of the school including: needs to take account of and balance a • the proportion of pupil trips on foot and • upgrading of the existing route from number of factors including: by bike is increased. Richmond Road to Wolsey Drive • the need for a certain level operational between the NKC and Tiffin Girls’ to a Walking and Cycling parking for the school (visitors/deliveries) 5m wide shared foot/cyclepath (subject to 8.28 There is potential for high levels of walking and provision of disabled parking due processes) and cycling and this should be maximised by • the need to maximise sustainable travel the school. A walking target of 50% of pupils • improvements to crossings and cycle – walking, cycling and public transport is considered achievable, as the school routes on Richmond Road from the through robust travel planning existing cycle routes along the river

25 • the need to minimise any adverse impact transport networks and to demonstrate Be Green of parking associate d with the school that the impact is acceptable and that 8.36 A minimum of 20% reduction of CO2 and community use of the school on the highway safety would not be compromised. emissions from on-site renewable energy surrounding residential area and A307 generation will be required from the Richmond Road Sustainable Design and Energy development. This requirement is on top 8.33 The development should be designed taking of the savings already made by being Lean • the size and orientation of the site and account of the sustainability principles set and Clean. The preference of renewable the need to ensure that there is sufficient out in section 6. In terms of sustainable technologies considered should be ranked in outdoor space for games and informal energy it should be designed in line with the terms of energy and cost efficiency. social areas and that the school grounds London Plan Energy Hierarchy, Be Lean (use are not dominated by parking areas less energy), Be Clean (use clean energy), Flood Risk, Water Supply and Drainage 8.31 Taking account of these factors, the school’s Be Green (use renewable energy). 8.37 Although the site is in Low Risk Flood accessibility, likely staff numbers (around Zone 1 (fluvial flooding), due to its size (over 1 ha.), a Flood Risk Assessment will

160 including about 110 teaching staff Be Lean C29 [approx. 30% part time] and 50 support 8.34 The new scheme should be designed to be required to accompany any planning staff) and provision at the recently rebuilt maximise the use of passive design such application. Development proposals also Chessington Community College, provision as natural ventilation and lighting and need to take account of infrastructure of up to 50 car parking spaces is considered should use energy efficient appliances and capacity, including water and sewerage to be appropriate. This roughly equates equipment wherever possible. The buildings infrastructure. The borough is in a to a maximum standard of 1 space per 4 should be designed to ensure air tightness designated area of serious water stress, members of staff, plus an allowance for and thermal insulation is prioritised to where water efficiency targets exist in the disabled and visitor parking. On-site parking minimise the heat loss from the building. London Plan. It is also within the Thames provision will need to be managed in Water London Zone, where a deficit accordance with agreed criteria. Be Clean in water supply is met by the use of a 8.35 The possibility of decentralised energy desalination plant. The use of rain water 8.32 If car use for the new school were of the generation should be considered and collection systems should be considered in order of 10% for pupil trips, this would prioritised above conventional building order to minimise use of potable water. The generate around 168 car trips to and from services. This should include combined Richmond Road area is also known to suffer the site in the morning and afternoons, plus heating/cooling and power. Any from lack of sewerage capacity (for surface staff trips which could add another 40 or consideration of traditional building services water drainage) and there have been so trips. Development proposals will need should be made as energy efficient as instances of flooding in periods of heavy to be accompanied by a comprehensive possible and should minimise their CO2 rainfall. Surface water management systems Transport Impact Assessment (with emissions. e.g. sustainable urban drainage systems sensitivity testing) to assess the likely (SUDs ) should be considered to manage impact of the school on the local area and and reduce flood risk. 26 9.0 Next Steps

9.1 As set out in Section 3, the consultation responses on this Draft Brief will be collated and reported to the Kingston Town and Development Control Committees in mid September, together with proposed amendments to the Brief. These together with the finalised Brief will be reported to the Executive for adoption on 29 September 2010. C30

27 APPENDIX 1: Summary of Events leading up to the preparation of this Brief

• June 2008 - the Council’s Executive o Request officers to develop detailed Schools for the Future (BSF) Programme approve the Authority’s Transforming plans for the submission of a planning and the Strategy for Change. This Kingston Schools (TKS) Strategy application for an 8 form entry school confirmed that following the conclusion comprising the Building Schools for on the North Kingston Centre site with of negotiations with ‘Partnerships the Future (BSF) and Primary Capital potential limited additional facilities on for Schools’ the Council has formally Programme. the Hawker Centre site entered the national BSF Programme, in partnership with the London Borough of • December 2008, the Executive approve o Approve the next steps in the Croydon. As a condition of acceptance the Authority’s Expression of Interest for consultation and expansion processes. onto the programme, the Council is entry into the BSF Programme and the • January-February 2010 - Statutory required to commit to submitting the proposal to build a new secondary school consultation on the proposal to establish Strategy for Change document by 17 May in the Kingston Town area, as part of the

a new 8 form entry secondary school on 2010 (outlining its proposals) and the C31 BSF proposals, in response to revised the North Kingston Centre site Outline Business Case by 29 November data on pupil numbers and the need for 2010. Key to the strategy is the provision additional secondary school places by • 9 March 2010 - the Executive: of a new secondary school to serve the 2014-2015. o Note the outcomes of the consultation north Kingston area. The Outline Business • April 2009 - the Executive approve a Case for the BSF Programme in respect o Confirm the specification for the new proposal to develop a new 6-8 form entry of the provision of a new school requires school as set out in the consultation secondary school and the consultation either an outline planning permission or document processes for establishing a new school. an Authority approved Planning Brief. o Agree to proceed to the competition • July-September 2009 - pre-statutory • April 2010 – first Competition Notice stage of the statutory process to consultation on a proposed site for a published by RBK inviting bids from establish a new secondary school new secondary school in the north of the potential providers of the new school (this borough o Note the work being undertaken to is a statutory requirement) develop the design proposals and • 29 September 2009 - the Executive: • July 2010 – report to the Executive on the the proposed Planning/Development final Strategy for Change and associated o Note the outcome of the informal Brief approach (instead of proceeding Estates Strategy for all secondary and consultation to prepare and submit a planning special schools. application in 2010) o Approve the proposal to proceed to the statutory process, including formal • 31 March 2010 – report to the Executive consultation providing an update on the Building

28 APPENDIX 2: Relevant London Plan and RBK Unitary Development Plan Policies Relevant London Plan Policies appropriate to the character of the • BE2 Local Areas of Special Character • Policy 3C.9 increasing the capacity, quality surroundings - where the Council will safeguard the and integration of public transport townscape of LASCs by protecting the • STR13 Sustainable Transport Strategy individual character, scale and quality of • Policy 3C.17 Tackling congestion and – which seeks to reduce the need for areas and features that contribute to that reducing traffic travel, especially that by private car, and character. to limit the length of journeys to be made, • Policy 3C.19 Local transport and public through appropriate land use policies. It • BE3 Development in Conservation Areas realm enhancements also seeks to improve accessibility of the – where the Council will give special • Policy 3C.21 Improving conditions for various transport networks to secure an attention to design of development walking improved environment and reduced traffic proposals within or adjoining conservation congestion, including through: areas.

• Policy 3C.23 Parking strategy C32 o Managing and developing public • BE9 Trees and Soft Landscaping – which • 4A Climate Change, Sustainable Design transport so as to provide the main seeks to maintain and improve the quality and Construction policies including 4A.1- means of travel of the local environment by avoiding 4A.3, 4A.7 Renewable Energy, 4A.14 the loss of trees that contribute to local Sustainable drainage and 4A.16 Efficient o Improving facilities so as to encourage amenity and requiring new development use of Water walking and cycling to include comprehensive landscaping • 4B Design policies including 4B.1 Design o Reducing reliance on car travel, proposals including larger trees and principles, 4B.5 Creating an inclusive particularly at peak hours by managing requiring replacements of at least 2 environment, 4B.8 Respect local context the availability of car parking for 1 for any trees lost in development and communities, 4B.9 Tall Buildings – schemes. o Protecting the environment by location and 4B.10 Large –scale buildings – implementing appropriate traffic • BE11 and BE12 Design of New Buildings design and impact. Policies 4B.9 and 4B.10 calming measures and Extensions/Layout and Amenity of apply to all buildings that are significantly Buildings and Extensions – which seek to taller than their surroundings. • STR16 Developing and Promoting ensure that new development does not Sustainable Transport Modes – through cause unacceptable harm to the visual Relevant RBK Unitary Development enhancing the role of rail, bus, cycling and quality and character of the locality and Plan (2005) ‘Saved’ Policies walking to meet travel needs that development proposals have proper • STR6 Conserving and Enhancing the Built • H1 Protection of Residential Amenities – regard to the amenity of its users and Environment – which requires a high in terms of noise and disturbance, privacy users of nearby developments. standard of design for new development, and safety, outlook and daylight. 29 • BE14 Height of New Buildings – which indicates that new development should respect the height of surrounding buildings, unless it can be demonstrated that taller buildings would not adversely affect the character of the local environment and amenity and would provide a positive a beneficial visual focus. • BE22 Pedestrian Environment – this encourages the creation and enhancement of pedestrian routes. • OL6 Protection of Other Open Land and

OL9 Development adjoining Open Space C33 - which seek to resist built development on open land including that which is listed in the Schedule of Protected Open Spaces (which includes the Tiffin Girls School sports pitches and grassed area) and to ensure that new development next to existing open space does not adversely affect its setting, amenity or ecological value by virtue of its height, scale, massing, location or function. • MW3 and MW4 Energy Efficiency and Conservation, Renewable Energy and Energy Recovery – which seek to ensure that development proposals address these matters through design, materials, orientation and layout

30 C34

31 C35

Service Director (Planning & Transportation) Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Guildhall 2 Kingston upon Thames Surrey KT1 1EU www.kingston.gov.uk Printed on recycled paper © Environmental Services, RBK Published June 2010 D1 APPENDIX D

KINGSTON TOWN NEIGHBOURHOOD COMMITTEE

19 JULY 2010

WORK PROGRAMME

Set out below is a list of topics which may be considered by the Committee on the dates shown. It should be noted that changing circumstances can result in the topic being considered at a different meeting or not needing to be considered by the Committee at all. The list will be kept up to date but at times reports will be included on the agenda which have not previously appeared on the list. This will include reports which the Executive will ask Neighbourhoods to consider.

Neighbourhood - 15 September 2010 Kingston Town Neighbourhood Grants 2010/11 Kingston Town Neighbourhood Budget 2010/11 Second Local Implementation Plan (LIP2) School Travel plan engineering works at Bank Lane; Latchmere Road; Albans Road and Durlston Road Kings Road Response to Petition

Planning Sub - 15 September 2010

Neighbourhood - 20 October 2010 Kingston Town Neighbourhood Grants 2010/11 Kingston Town Neighbourhood Budget 2010/11 LDF Core Strategy Car Clubs Lorry Delivery Zones Publicity - Kingston Town Centre

Planning Sub - 10 November 2010

Neighbourhood - 15 December 2010 Kingston Town Neighbourhood Grants 2010/11 Countdown Information at Bus Stops

Planning Sub - 19 January 2011

Neighbourhood - 9 February 2011 Kingston Town Neighbourhood Grants 2010/11

Planning Sub - 9 March 2011

Neighbourhood - 6 April 2011 Kingston Town Neighbourhood Grants 2010/11 1 APPENDIX

Guidance note on revised Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing

This note provides guidance to officers and members on the implementation of revised Planning Policy Statement 3 on Housing 1. It is intended as interim advice for decision making until such time a local policy can be developed as part of Council’s Local Development Framework (LDF).

Generally this advice is expected to apply to new dwellings and not to extensions or replacement dwellings.

Introduction In June 2010 the Government published a revised Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing which included the following changes:

• The national indicative minimum density of 30 dwellings per hectare is deleted from paragraph 47;

• Private residential gardens are now excluded from the definition of previously developed land in Annex B.

Local Planning Authorities and the Planning Inspectorate are expected to have regard to this new policy position in preparing development plans and, where relevant, to take it into account as a material consideration when determining planning applications.

A letter from the Department for Communities and Local Government to all Chief Planning Officers (appendix 1) confirmed that “these changes emphasise that it is for local authorities and communities to take decisions that are best for them, and decide for themselves the best locations and types of development in their area.”

Implications for assessing planning applications Garden Land Development The revisions to PPS 3 and the accompanying ministerial statement clarify that private residential gardens no longer come within the definition of previously developed land. It is important to note, however, that this change does not give private gardens the same degree of protection from redevelopment as other open land (Green Belt, local open space etc) and therefore the change should not be considered to equate to a complete embargo on the redevelopment of private residential gardens.

This change in definition will need to be reflected in policy as part of the Council’s LDF, including a definition of ‘private residential garden’. In order to inform the development of such a policy, officers are currently undertaking local research to establish the extent to which past developments on garden land have contributed to previous housing completion targets (including targets relating to housing delivery on brownfield land) and the degree to which such developments have contributed to the creation of new family homes within the Borough.

Until a new local policy has been established or more detailed guidance has been issued by the Government, applications should continue to be assessed against the existing Development Plan, including the London Plan (key policies outlined below and summarised in appendix 2) taking into account the revised PPS3 where relevant. In essence the Council already has the power to refuse unacceptable development which is not in

1 PPS3: Housing http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/pps3housing 2

keeping with the character of the local area through Policies STR6 and BE11 which will continue to apply.

The London Plan The existing London Plan (consolidated with changes since 2004) does not contain any policies that specifically protect back gardens. However, as part of the broad development strategy for London, Policy 2A.1 seeks to optimise the use of previously developed land. The London Plan also contains a performance indicator to increase the proportion of development taking place on previously developed land with a target to maintain 96% of new residential development on previously developed land.

The Mayor’s Interim Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance sets out a number of criteria that Local Planning Authorities should consider when assessing applications for the redevelopment of garden land. Although published prior to the amended PPS3, these principles remain relevant and can be applied by the Council:

Supplementary Planning Guidance 1: Private Land Development In implementing London Plan housing policies and especially Policy 3A.2, the Mayor will, and Boroughs and other partners are advised when considering development proposals which entail the loss of garden land, to take full account of the contribution of gardens to achievement of London Plan policies on: • local context and character including the historic and built environment; • safe, secure and sustainable environments; • bio diversity; • trees; • green corridors and networks; • flood risk; • climate change including the heat island effect, and • enhancing the distinct character of suburban London, and carefully balance these policy objectives against the generally limited contribution such developments can make towards achieving housing targets.

Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan, 2005 The 2005 UDP contains polices that seek to protect existing character (STR6), protect residential amenity (H1 & BE12) and require new development in the Borough to accord with the sound principles relating to design, appearance and siting (BE11).

Protection of Residential Amenities H1 IN DETERMINING DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS THE COUNCIL WILL HAVE REGARD TO THE NEED TO SAFEGUARD RESIDENTIAL AMENITIES IN TERMS OF:- A. NOISE AND DISTURBANCE; B. PRIVACY AND SAFETY; C. OUTLOOK; D. DAYLIGHT.

Residential and Other Uses in Residential Areas H2 WITHIN RESIDENTIAL AREAS THE RESIDENTIAL USE OF LAND WILL NORMALLY BE AN ACCEPTABLE USE, AND THE COUNCIL WILL SEEK THE REPLACEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTALLY HARMFUL USES WITH A RESIDENTIAL USE OR OTHER USE COMPATIBLE WITH THE AREA WHERE THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH OTHER PLAN POLICIES.

3

Conserving and Enhancing the Built Environ ment STR6 THE COUNCIL WILL SEEK TO ACHIEVE A HIGH QUALITY BUILT ENVIRONMENT IN THE BOROUGH BY:- A. CONSERVING OR ENHANCING THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT, PARTICULARLY AREAS OF HIGH QUALITY AND CHARACTER AND BUILDINGS AND SITES ASSOCIATED WITH THE HISTORY OR HERITAGE OF THE BOROUGH; B. REQUIRING A HIGH STANDARD OF DESIGN FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT, APPROPRIATE TO THE CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDINGS; C. SAFEGUARDING KEY VIEWS WITHIN, OUT OF, AND INTO THE BOROUGH.

Design of New Buildings and Extensions BE11 ALL DEVELOPMENT THROUGHOUT THE BOROUGH SHOULD ACCORD WITH SOUND PRINCIPLES RELATING TO DESIGN, APPEARANCE AND SITING AND SHOULD NOT CAUSE UNACCEPTABLE HARM TO THE VISUAL QUALITY AND CHARACTER OF THE LOCALITY. IN PARTICULAR, DUE REGARD WILL BE GIVEN TO THE FOLLOWING: A) RELATIONSHIP TO ADJOINING PROPERTIES, INCLUDING THEIR ROOF FORMS AND OTHER EXTERNAL FEATURES, AND THE STREETSCENE; B) RELATIONSHIP TO MAIN BUILDING IN THE CASE OF EXTENSIONS AND ANCILLARY BUILDINGS; C) AVOIDANCE OF VISUAL INTRUSION; D) MATERIALS.

Layout an d Amenity of Buildings and Extensions BE12 ALL DEVELOPMENT SHOULD HAVE PROPER REGARD TO THE AMENITY OF ITS USERS AND THE USERS OF NEARBY DEVELOPMENTS. PARTICULAR CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE FOLLOWING: A) THE MAINTENANCE OF ADEQUATE DAYLIGHT AND SUNLIGHT INTO AND BETWEEN BUILDINGS; B) THE PROTECTION OF PRIVACY; C) LAYOUT AND ACCESS FOR ALL USERS, INCLUDING CONSIDERATION OF THE NEEDS OF PEOPLE WITH MOBILITY DIFFICULTIES; D) AVOIDANCE OF NOISE, VIBRATION AND OTHER FORMS OF POLLUTION; E) THE PROVISION OF ADEQUATE OFF STREET PARKING; F) THE PROVISION OF ADEQUATE AMENITY SPACE.

Residential Density The other amendment to PPS3 is the removal of the national minimum density target of 30 dwellings per hectare as a basis for both policy advice and decisions on development.

The impact of this change in Kingston will be limited given that the London Plan remains in force for planning guidance on housing densities. This is done through the London Plan Density Matrix which sets a range of densities from 35 to 405 units per hectare depending on the setting (character) of a site, existing building form and massing and the degree of public transport accessibility. Therefore, for the purposes of decision making, the London Plan Density Matrix should continue to be applied in Kingston.

In the future, the trend towards localisation will allow more emphasis on how we locally interpret density which could include the removal of a lower limit, depending on local evidence. The LDF will be the vehicle for taking this forward.

Julie Baird Interim Head of Planning July 2010 4

APPENDIX 1

Department for Communities and Local Government to all Chief Planning Officers

5 6

APPENDIX 2

Summary of Policy Framework and Key Changes