For enquiries on this agenda please contact James Geach 020 8547 5062 e-mail: [email protected]
This agenda is available at: www.kingston.gov.uk/CommitteeMinutes
AGENDA
A meeting of the DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE will be held at the Guildhall, Kingston upon Thames on TUESDAY 12 FEBRUARY 2013 at 7:30 pm
Members of the Committee
Councillor Vicki Harris (Chair) Councillor David Cunningham Councillor David Ryder-Mills Councillor Ken Smith Councillor Chrissie Hitchcock Councillor Richard Hudson Councillor Malcolm Self Councillor Frank Thompson
EMERGENCY EVACUATION ARRANGEMENTS
On hearing the alarm which is a loud siren please leave the building by the nearest available fire exit and assemble by the triangle at the front of the Guildhall. Anyone requiring assistance to evacuate the building should go to the refuge areas which are situated outside Committee Room 1 and the Mayor’s Parlour where you will be met by a member of the building management team and assisted from the building.
RECORDING OF THE MEETING - This meeting will be recorded and the recording will be available on the web site with the agenda and minutes.
FILMING - residents and journalists/media wishing to film meetings are permitted to do so but are asked to give advance notice of this and respect any concerns expressed by people on being filmed.
A LARGE PRINT COPY OF THE AGENDA can be requested in advance
2
Speaking on Planning Applications, Enforcement, or Tree Preservation Orders
The arrangements for speaking on applications are based on both sides having equal time to make their points to Councillors. To make sure that the meeting runs in a way which is fair to everyone, these arrangements will be followed without any exceptions being made. The full scheme is at http://www.kingston.gov.uk/information/your_council/council_and_democracy/ council_and_decision_making/getting_your_voice_heard.htm
Everyone wishing to speak on an application, Enforcement Action or Tree Preservation Order must have registered THREE days before the meeting. Objectors must have responded to the consultation on an application
Registration deadline: 10:00am, Friday 8 February 2013 To register please contact James Geach 020 8547 5062 e-mail: [email protected]
Time for speaking - FIVE minutes is allowed for each side on each application. This time has to be shared by however many there are on each side. If there are a large number of speakers people must decide amongst themselves on a spokesperson or some other arrangement.
The Chair of the meeting has no discretion to extend the time limit.
Speakers may find it helpful to have made some notes on what they want to say, so that they make the most of the speaking time. The notes attached to the original consultation letter from the Planning Officer will have explained the things that the Committee can't take account of - loss of view, property values etc.
The order of speaking is: 1. Planning applications Enforcement/Tree Preservation Orders 2. Planning Officer to present item 3. Objector(s) (5 minutes) Land/property owner (5 minutes)
4. Applicant (5 minutes) The Council as applicant and/or supporters of the action proposed (5 minutes) 5. Questions from Committee: 6. Objector(s) (5 minutes) Land/property owner (5 minutes) Applicant (5 minutes) The Council as applicant and/or supporters of the action proposed (5 minutes) 7. Sweep up by Planning Officer 8. Questions from Committee to Officers 9. Debate and decision by Committee
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ARRANGEMENTS FOR OTHER ITEMS
Questions and contributions to the debate will be accepted at the Chair’s discretion as the meeting progresses on: • applications on which other authorities/agencies have requested views other items in Part 1 of the agenda, falling outside the arrangements for speaking on planning applications. 3
AGENDA
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND ATTENDANCE OF ALTERNATE MEMBERS
DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS
1. MINUTES
To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 22 January 2013
2. PLANNING APPLICATIONS Appendix A
3. DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE MONITORING Appendix B
4. URGENT ITEMS AUTHORISED BY THE CHAIR
DATES OF FUTURE MEETINGS: 26 March 2013 30 April 2013 Meetings to be held at the Guildhall, High Street, Kingston starting at 7.30pm.
APPENDIX A
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
TUESDAY 12 FEBRUARY 2013 REPORT BY HEAD OF PLANNING & TRANSPORT PLANNING APPLICATIONS
INDEX
ITEM REGISTER ADDRESS DESCRIPTION RECOMMENDATION PAGE NO NO NO
A1 12/12241 Kingston Railway Station, Wood Erection of extension to platform 3 PERMIT A2 Street, Kingston Upon Thames, including extension to existing bridge KT1 1UJ over Richmond Road. A2 12/12754 Proposed, 70-78 Eden Street, Refurbishment and extensions of PERMIT A17 Kingston Upon Thames existing retail store (Primark Nos 70-76) to provide a four storey retail building, with basement and roof level plant, including the demolition and redevelopment of 78 Eden Street (Friends Meeting House) A3 12/12829 180-190 London Road And 8- Discharge of condition 2, facing DISCHARGE A45 11, Station Road, Kingston materials and informative number 5, Upon Thames material details, of application number 11/12492/FUL.
Report 279740 APPENDIX A
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
TUESDAY 12 FEBRUARY 2013 REPORT BY HEAD OF PLANNING & TRANSPORT PLANNING APPLICATIONS
INDEX
ITEM REGISTER ADDRESS DESCRIPTION RECOMMENDATION PAGE NO NO NO
A4 12/14991 Former Kingston Vale Service Demolition of existing residential PERMIT A49 Station & 1a Robin Hood Lane bungalow at 1a Robin Hood Lane and erection of a part single, part two, part three-storey building providing 119 units of managed student accommodation and including parking for 12 cars and 60 bicycles, refuse and storage facilities, communal areas and public realm (wider pavements and landscaping and tree planting) works. A5 12/16601 159 Grand Avenue, Surbiton, Erection of Single Storey rear Extension PERMIT A81 Surrey, KT5 9HZ
Report 279740
- DEVLOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
12 FEBRUARY 2013
REPORT BY THE
HEAD OF PLANNING & TRANSPORT
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
All recommendations for planning permission in this section are automatically subject to the condition limiting the duration of the permission required by Sections 91 and 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act (as amended) 1990 unless permission is to be granted for a limited period or unless there is a specific recommendation that the period for such duration be other than the period referred to in the standard condition. All background papers are incorporated into Planning Application Reports.
The policies listed are those from the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames the Local Development Framework Core Strategy, Adopted April 2012.
A1
Development Control Committee Date of Meeting: 12/02/2013
A Register No : 12/12241/FUL
Address : KINGSTON RAILWAY STATION, WOOD STREET, KINGSTON UPON THAMES, KT1 1UJ
(c) Crown Copyright. All right reserved. Royal Borough of Kingston 2007. Licence number 100019285. [Please note that this plan is intended to assist in locating the development it is not the site plan of the proposed development which may have different boundaries. Please refer to the application documents for the proposed site boundaries.] A2
Ward : Grove Description of Proposal : Erection of extension to platform 3 including extension to existing bridge over Richmond Road. Plan Type : Full Application Expiry Date : 25/06/2012
Applicant's Plan Nos :
119799-DRG-PS27-001 P04 Received 22/11/2012 Block Plan Received 16/04/2012 Design and Access Statement Received 04/04/2012 Existing plan Received 30/04/2012 Proposed Management Plan Received 07/11/2012 Site Location Plan Received 04/04/2012
BASIC INFORMATION
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012
Development Plan : London Plan July 2011 LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012 K+20 Area Action Plan
Policies
K+20 AREA ACTION PLAN K15 Town Centre Road Network K16 Public Transport K9 Design Quailty in the Town Centre
LONDON PLAN JULY 2012 LP 6.1 Strategic approach LP 6.2 Providing public transport capacity and
LDF CORE STRATEGY CORE POLICIES CS 06 Sustainable Travel CS 08 Character, Heritage and Design
LDF CORE STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT DM08 Sustainable Transport for new Developmen DM10 Design Requirements for New Developments
A3
Consultations
1. Neighbour Notification - 191 surrounding owner/occupiers have been consulted. 18 letters of objection have been received along with 2 further objection letters, one signed by 7 residents of Canbury Park Road and one on behalf of the Regents Court Action Group. Concerns raised include: (a) Increase in noise and general disruption. Noise can come from people using the platform; the additional train carriages; station announcements; door alarms etc (b) Loss of privacy as people can stare directly in the rear of properties along Canbury Park Road (c) The concrete structure which would replace a green embankment would be an eyesore (d) Light pollution from the platform lights (e) The security of the premises at the rear would be compromised as the platform would make it easier to access the properties (f) The height of the bridge if extended would be inadequate for large vehicles to pass underneath on Richmond Road. (g) The applicant states that no trees will be lost as a result of this proposal. This statement is incorrect. A number of trees along the embankment have been felled which has had a negative impact upon residential amenity (h) The intrusion of possible CCTV is not welcomed (i) Increase in litter to the rear gardens of properties along Canbury Park Road (j) Loss of light to properties on Canbury Park Road and Richmond Road (k) Loss of wildlife (bats, foxes and birds mainly) currently living in the embankment (l) The proposed sand blasted panels would be an eye-sore 2. Two additional letters were also received which were sent to Network Rail from residents of Regents Court who have long standing issues with Kingston Station, particularly people accessing their land to avoid paying fares. 3. Many of the objection letters questioned why Network Rail are proposing to extend the platform to the east and not the west. Network Rail provided the following response: (a) Due to the curvature of the track, significant infrastructure works would be required to allow the platform to be extended. This would include extensive track reconfiguration and remodelling of signalling (which would affect a large area of the network between Kingston and Waterloo). This is considered highly disruptive to the local community and prohibitively expensive. (b) Any proposal at this end to extend the platform is likely to result in removing the ability to extend the bay platform at Kingston Station in the future, should additional capacity be required on this platform. It should be noted that the existing platform 2 (trains coming from Waterloo) is currently long enough to hold 10 car trains.
A4
(c) Any proposal at the western end would require land purchase and it is unclear if the land would be available. Potentially there could be the option of Compulsory Purchase, but as one of the tests of this process, Network Rail would be questioned as to whether the works could be facilitated at an alternative location, on land that we already own. The answer to this test would be ‘Yes’, hence the current proposal. This is a property issue rather than planning, but is a useful consideration. (d) Network Rail investigated further the possibility of extending at the western end, and we were informed by our in house operations team that there is a proposal to use the land that we own at this end of the station to install a new DC Power supply unit. This would also stop any potential for the platform to be extended at this end. These works will be undertaken using Part 17 of the General Permitted Development Order. 4. Council Environmental Health Officer – No objection subject to an lighting impact assessment and an acoustic report secured by condition investigating mitigation measures of the proposal, i.e. an increase in the barrier height from 1.8 to 2 m. 5. Environment Agency - No objection in terms of flood risk. 6. English Heritage - No requirement for archaeological works. 7. Neighbourhood Traffic Engineer – No objection. Policies PT1, PT2 & PT3 of the Local Implementation Plan seek to improve rail facilities and capacity which this application will help to achieve. 8. Kingston Town Planning Sub Committee – (a) Members identified a range of impacts on residents of Canbury Park Road whose homes are close to the proposal, especially where the embankment trees have been removed. It was suggested that members of Development Control undertake a site visit to see where the trees have been removed prior to determining this application. (b) Other impacts include additional lighting, noise and disturbance related to the operation of trains into the night and loss of privacy for homes and gardens. There would also be impacts on the environment. (c) Members questioned why the proposal is a platform extension to the east rather than the west which would avoid impacts on residents. Whilst the east option would incur greater costs, it was felt this was not an adequate reason not to progress this approach. (d) Members sought confirmation that capability for 10 and 12 carriage trains was being planned at other stations on routes to and from Kingston and requested further detail be sought from TfL on any plans to improve the loop line. Members commented that there are many other stations where platforms cannot accommodate longer trains.
A5
Site and Surroundings
9. The application site concerns Kingston Railway Station which is a primary gateway into the town. Kingston Railway Station is located in the middle of the one-way system which includes the A307 & A308 (Clarence Street, Kingsgate Road, Sopwith Way and Richmond Road). 10. The application itself specifically concerns the eastern part of the station, adjacent to properties on Richmond Road and residential dwellings along Canbury Park Road and the student accommodation Quebec House. 11. The application site lies within flood zones 2 and 3a. 12. Richmond Road and the Railway embankments are designated as 'Green Corridors'. 13. The application site is designated as Proposal Site 10 (Kingston Station) within the K+20 Kingston Town Centre Area Action Plan.
Proposal
14. The proposal relates to the extension of platform 3 of Kingston Railway Station. 15. The proposed extension would lengthen the platform by 44.5 m in order to accommodate 10/12 carriages, compared to the 8 currently used. The extension would extend to the east of the existing platform and would be 2.5 m wide. The extension to the platform involves the extension to the existing bridge suspended above Richmond Road. The application also involves the erection of a parapet edging to the platform 1800 mm in height. This would be constructed of steel posts with steel infill panels with a section of translucent panels alongside No 16 Richmond Road. Above the 1.8 m high panels would be a horizontal trunking at 2.3 - 2.5 m in height from the platform to house bulkhead lighting.
Assessment
The main considerations material to the determination of this application are:
• Principle of Proposed Development • Impact on Character of Area • Impact on Neighbour’s Residential Amenity • Highways and Parking • Trees • Legal Agreements • Other Material Considerations
Principle of Proposed Development
16. Policy 6.1 (Strategic Approach) of the London Plan states that the Mayor will work with all relevant partners to encourage the closer A6
integration of transport and development through the schemes and proposals shown in Table 6.1 and by: (a) seeking to improve the capacity and accessibility of public transport (b) supporting measures that encourage shifts to more sustainable modes and appropriate demand management. 17. Table 6.1 of the London Plan states two transport schemes which relate to the improvements proposed at Kingston Station: (a) Southwest London - Ten-car capability on inner suburban and Windsor lines; and (b) Southwest London - Further capacity increases. 18. Policy 6.2 (Providing Public Transport Capacity and Safeguarding Land for Transport) states that the Mayor will work with strategic partners to: (a) improve the integration, reliability, quality, accessibility, frequency, attractiveness and environmental performance of the public transport system (b) increase the capacity of public transport in London over the Plan period by securing funding for and implementing the schemes and improvements set out in Table 6.1. 19. Policy CS6 of the Councils LDF Core Strategy states that 'to support and encourage the use of public transport the Council will (a) work with and lobby partners to improve existing train services including increased capacities, frequencies and late night services, improved station facilities and fairer pricing including the rezoning of Surbiton and Kingston stations. (b) work with and lobby partners to improve sub regional, orbital and cross boundary public transport particularly to serve the catchments of major trip attractors including Kingston Town Centre. 20. Proposal Site P10 (Kingston Station) of the K+20 AAP states that the Council will pursue the upgrading of Kingston Station with partners: TfL, Network Rail, the Department for Transport and South West Trains, to include a secure public cycle parking facility. In the longer term there is potential for mixed use redevelopment to provide a new station, retail, and A2/A3 uses at ground level with B1 offices/workspace above and general and/or managed student housing to create a high quality landmark development, with an improved public realm, better pedestrian/cycle links across the relief road and a secure cycle parking facility. The site is within Flood Risk Zone 2 (medium risk) and development proposals should accord with Policy K24. Development proposals should take account of the storage of hazardous materials at Kingston Gas Holders. 21. Policy K16 (Public Transport) of the K+20 AAP states that the Council will work with partners including TfL, London Rail, Network Rail, the Department for Transport, transport providers, including London Buses and South West Trains, SWELTRAC, landowners and developers and seek to ensure that the following improvements to public transport infrastructure and services are implemented: (a) More frequent and reliable rail services, including more late
A7
night rail services on the Richmond to Kingston loop line (b) Significant improvements to Kingston Station including: a new entrance and ticketing hall, better interchange facilities, lifts, secure cycle parking, later opening, better security, staffing and information and in the longer term a new station with development above. 22. There is no policy objection to the principle of the extension of the platform, subject to compliance with other development plan policies. 23. Further guidance and reasoning behind station improvements across the Country can be found in the Governments White Paper ‘Delivering a Sustainable Railway’ (July 2007). The paper highlights investment from Central Government into the countries rail infrastructure that contributes to economic growth and environmental challenges. ‘The railway can only meet these goals if it has the capacity to carry the passengers who want to use it. Rail has seen record levels of growth – over 40 per cent in the last decade – so in response the railway is running more services than before, and has provided more trains. But capacity has not kept pace with record demand across the network, and crowding on some of the busiest services has got worse. The priority for the Government’s rail strategy is to tackle these trends’. 24. This paper states that ‘the Government will invest in more trains and more capacity to enable growth and to start to tackle overcrowding. On some lines, provision of additional capacity will require new infrastructure. This ranges from the £5.5 billion Thameslink Programme, through the £600 million to tackle congestion at Reading station and Birmingham New Street, to a large number of relatively modest individual schemes to lengthen platforms, upgrade electricity supply and provide sufficient depots. The Government is funding these improvements. These increases in capacity make a good start on tackling crowding for some of the busiest services, while enabling the railway as a whole to accommodate another seven years of record growth. And further improvements will follow – this is a long term strategy, not one that stops after just seven years’. 25. Within the White Paper the Department for Transport High Level Output Specification has set out specimen capacity options, it states that “South West Trains – infrastructure enhancement and train lengthening to 10-cars in peaks on all Waterloo suburban routes: Windsor & Eton Riverside, Reading, Kingston, Shepperton, Hampton Court, Weybridge, and Guildford via Claygate and via Bookham, Chessington South and Dorking”. 26. It is clear that the lengthening of platform 3 at Kingston Station is imbedded in a much larger strategic plan to improve the rail network throughout the UK.
Impact on Character of Area
27. The application site does not fall within the boundaries of a A8
Conservation Area or an Area of Special Character. 28. The main element of the extension that would be visible in the street scene would be the extension to the bridge over Richmond Road. The application proposes to widen the existing bridge by 2.5 m to the north. Along the northern elevation of the proposed platform extension would be 1800 mm high steel panels set between steel posts. No colour has been specified at this stage for these panels as the applicant intends for the external finish of these panels to be secured via condition if the application is approved. 29. For part of the northern facade of the platform extension 16 translucent panels which would be located alongside the proposed development at 16-18 Richmond Road. These translucent panels have been proposed in order to overcome issues relating to residential amenity. However, they would be visible from Richmond Road and from the rear of properties along Canbury Park Road and other residential properties. 30. The existing bridge suspended above Richmond Road is considered to have a rather 'tired' and dilapidated appearance as maintenance of it has not been frequently carried out. The northern side of the bridge has an open facade red steel side which is not considered to be a positive attribute within the street scene as you enter the town centre. The proposed steel panels would provide a more stark appearance than the existing open railings. However, the introduction of colour to the proposed panels could form a feature when entering the town centre from the north. As it stands, the proposed panels would at the least preserve the character and appearance of the area and street scene. However, the introduction of some colour to the panels or a landmark feature could enhance the entrance to the town centre when compared to the existing structure. As such, subject to a suitable condition seeking further details for the finish of the steel panels, the proposal is considered to be acceptable. 31. The proposed platform extension would be particularly visible from the rear elevations and gardens of properties on the southern side of Canbury Park Road and the properties within the easterly facing elevation of Regents Court. However, it is considered that the use of colour to these panels and the glazed panels would not have a detrimental impact upon the character or appearance of the area. 32. The proposed platform extension is at least considered to preserve the character and appearance of the area, and could result in an enhancement of the entrance into the town centre from the north if appropriate materials are used. As such, it is considered that the application complies with Policies CS8 & DM10 of the Councils LDF Core Strategy and Policies K9 & K10 of the Councils K+20 AAP.
Impact on Neighbours’ Residential Amenity
33. Within the immediate surroundings of Kingston Railway Station are a number of residential properties. 34. Regents Court is directly to the north of the station. As Regents Court follows the profile of Sopwith Way the building is angled to front A9
Richmond Road on the easterly facing elevation. This easterly facing elevation will look directly out onto the proposed platform extension to the south east. 35. To the south of the railway line is Quebec House, a 129 bedroom student halls of accommodation. There are no habitable room windows in the northern elevation of Quebec House which face directly onto the railway. 36. To the immediate north of the railway track, currently to the east of the existing platforms are the rear of properties along Canbury Park Road. The upper floors of the Public House at No 20 Richmond Road are also in residential use. The proposed platform extension would extend to the rear of No 4 Canbury Park Road, thus also being to the rear of No's 2 and the Public House. 37. A planning application was approved on appeal to develop No's 16 - 18 Richmond Road for a 6 storey building comprising a restaurant at ground floor and 9 residential flats above. Whilst this development is yet to be constructed the developer advises that initial works have started on-site. It is therefore considered that the development will be completed in the near future. The proposed development has a number of primary habitable room windows (bedroom and living room) in the southern elevation that will directly face the proposed platform, particularly the proposed first and second floors. The proposed extension would be approximately 5 metres from these habitable room windows. 38. A number of concerns with regards to residential amenity have been raised from numerous residents. Generally, they relate to the impact the development would have on their privacy and their living conditions through the increase in noise, light and general disturbance from the railway operations being borough closer to their properties. 39. At a height of 1.8 m, the proposed panels are considered to be of a height which would restrict the loss of privacy on the neighbouring properties. Whilst Regents Court is a taller building than the two storey houses on Canbury Park Road, it is considered that the angles of sight between the two and the distance from the platform extension to Regents Court would not result in the undue loss of privacy. The development, yet to be completed, at No 16-18 Richmond Road would contain a number of habitable room windows in their southern elevation overlooking the platform extension. The 1.8 m high translucent panels would not allow for views directly into the first and second floors of the building and given the proximity of the platform, views to the upper floors would be at a steep angle from the platform as to safeguard their privacy. 40. The proposed platform extension would bring people using the station within much closer proximity to the residential properties on Richmond Road and Canbury Park Road. As such, there will be an increase in noise and disturbance from people and activites such as trains stopping and starting; door alarms; train announcements etc. In order to limit the harm this would have on residential amenity, Network Rail
A10
propose: (a) The public address system will need to operate at current audible levels throughout the station (including the areas of extended platform) at peak times between 7 - 11 am and then again at 4 - 7 pm. At all other times, the volume level can aim to be reduced, and where possible (particularly at the ends or less congested areas of the platform) switched off. (b) The lighting proposed will consist of bulk head lighting at a 45 degree angle. This is designed to reduce the lighting pollution produced. The station lighting is required to remain on 24 hours a day for security reasons. 41. The station announcements could be controlled by condition to reduce the harm in terms of noise. Also, the design of the bulkhead lamps is to angle the casement at 45 degrees onto the platform extension and away from the residential windows. 42. The Councils Environmental Health Officer has raised concerns with regards to the impact upon residential amenity from noise and lighting which would come about as a result of the proposed platform extension. However, it is considered that these impacts could be mitigated against with the use of appropriately worded conditions relating to acoustic control, a lighting strategy and landscaping. 43. Whilst it is acknowledged that the station would lead to some detrimental impact upon residential amenity, it is considered that the strategic importance and the wider benefits of the platform extension are sufficient to outweigh the degree of harm that is caused. Nevertheless, in order to mitigate the impact that the extension would have upon residential amenity it is considered appropriate to attach conditions to any permission to secure mitigation measures in respect of noise nuisance, a full lighting impact assessment and a proposed landscaping scheme. 44. Translucent panels have been proposed alongside the adjoining future residential development in order to allow light into the ground, first and second floor windows. The details with regards to the degree of translucency whilst safeguarding the privacy of the residential properties can be secured by condition in the event of an approved decision. 45. The outlook of the existing residential properties has changed as a result of the removal of trees and hedgerow along the embankment. However, the removal of these trees does not require permission. 46. The proposed platform extension would be approximately 17-20 m from the rear elevations of No’s 2, 4, & 6 Canbury Park Road. No 2 is a commercial premise and the two nearest windows of No 4 serve a kitchen at ground floor level and a bathroom at first floor. At this distance it is considered to be sufficient so as to not significantly harm their outlook. The platform extension would also be within approximately 4 m of the new development at No 16-18 Richmond Road. This distance to the proposed habitable rooms for the future development is a concern. However, Network Rail have been in active A11
dialogue with the developer of this site and the use of translucent panels is considered to be an acceptable mitigation strategy to minimise the impact upon the outlook of these units. 47. In conclusion, it is acknowledged that the proposed platform extension would result in a degree of harm to the amenities of nearby residential properties. However, on balance it is considered that the strategic benefits that come about as a result of this application in terms of improvements to public transport capacity outweigh the harm that is caused.
Highways & Parking
48. There are no parking related issues associated with this application. 49. The extension to the bridge above Richmond Road will suspend above a busy and well used highway. In this location the highway is forced to dip down in order to provide the required head room for large vehicles to pass under the existing bridge. Noting the Councils Neighbourhood Traffic Engineer's comments, the proposed bridge extension would not have a detrimental impact upon the ability for buses and large vehicles to pass underneath. 50. At this stage, the exact details of construction and the potential disruption to the public highway are unknown. 51. The proposal would not have a detrimental impact upon highway safety in the long term and whilst it is acknowledged that there will be disruption to Richmond Road during the construction of the extension, the Council has existing highway legislation in which to minimise the disruption caused. As such, the proposal is considered to comply with Policy CS6 of the Councils LDF Core Strategy.
Trees
52. There were a number of trees and vegetation along the northern embankment of the railway that were required to be removed in order to extend platform 3. None of these trees are protected by a Tree Preservation Order and all fall within the ownership of Network Rail. 53. Prior to the determination of this application Network Rail removed all the trees and shrubbery along the northern embankment in the location of the proposed platform extension location. No planning permission was required to remove these trees. A number of concerns have been raised with regards to the loss of trees and the potential visual impacts this has on the surrounding residential properties. If the application were to be approved a condition requiring landscaping could be applied to any consent.
Legal Agreements
54. No legal agreement is required for this application.
A12
Sustainability
55. There are no issues of sustainability associated with the construction of the platform extension. Other Material Considerations
Ecology 56. The embankments alongside the railway line are designated as 'Green Corridors'. Green Corridors, are relatively continuous areas of open space that run through the Borough's built environment, consisting of railway embankments and cuttings, roadside verges, canals, parks, playing fields and rivers which links sites to each other. These Green Corridors allow animals and plants to be found further into the built up area than would otherwise be the case and provide an extension to the habitats of the sites they join. 57. A number of concerns have also been raised by nearby residents with regards to bats using the trees and bushes along the embankment. Prior to determination of this planning application Network Rail have removed the vegetation on the embankment. No planning permission is required to remove this vegetation however during the works residents did contact the Council and the Police with regards to works which could harm bats or bat roosts. As this would be a criminal offence, the Police are the regulatory body overseeing the correct procedure for the works.
Reason for Approval
1. The proposed platform extension would improve public transport services in the town centre and whilst the proposal would result in some adverse impact on residential amenity, the strategic importance and wider benefits of the platform extension is considered sufficient to outweigh the degree of harm caused. It is considered that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact upon the character and appearance of the area or highway safety. The proposal therefore complies with Policies 6.1 & 6.2 of the London Plan (July 2011), Policies CS6, CS8 & DM10 of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames LDF Core Strategy (Adopted April 2012) and Policies K9, K10, K16, K24 & P10 of the K+20 Kingston Town Centre Area Action Plan (2008).
Recommendation :
Approve subject to the following conditions: 1 The development hereby permitted shall be commenced within 3 years from the date of this decision. Reason: In order to comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990. (As amended) 2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance
A13
with the following approved plans: PLAN REFERENCES WILL BE INSERTED HERE Reason: For avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. 3 The development shall be completed in accordance with the following details which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, before building operations commence. (a) materials for the panels to the northern elevation of the platform extension and their external finishes (including their colour and texture). (b) measures to prevent people accessing the gardens of properties on Canbury Park Road Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance on completion of the development in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012. 4 No development shall commence until a landscaping scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, to include replacement planting on the northern embankment to provide screening to the residential properties on Canbury Park Road. The approved scheme shall be implemented within the first planting season following completion of the development and the tree planting and landscaping shall thereafter be maintained for five years to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs which die during this period shall be replaced in the first available planting season, and the area shown to be landscaped shall be permanently retained for that purpose only. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and also that the Local Planning Authority shall be satisfied as to the details of the development in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012. 5 The landscape scheme as previously submitted and approved shall be implemented within the first planting season following completion of the development and the tree planting and landscaping shall thereafter be maintained for five years to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs which die during this period shall be replaced in the first available planting season, and the areas shown to be so landscaped shall be permanently retained for that purpose. Alterations that affect these approved landscape details must be previously agreed to in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and also that the Local Planning Authority shall be satisfied as to the details of the development in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012. 6 The station announcements shall not be carried out on the platform
A14
extension hereby permitted after 19:00 pm and before 0700 am. Reason: In order that the lighting shall not cause nuisance to nearby occupiers in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012. 7 Before the development is commenced a scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to mitigate against noise disturbance affecting residential amenity. The scheme shall be implemented before the development is operational and thereafter permanently retained. Reason: In order that the station announcements shall not cause nuisance to nearby occupiers in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012. 8 Prior to the commencement of development, an external lighting scheme shall be submitted to an approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The lighting scheme shall be operated in accordance with the approved details in perpetuity. Reason: In order that the lighting shall not cause nuisance to nearby occupiers in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012. 9 The site and building works required to implement the development shall be only carried out between the hours of 08.00 and 18.00 Mondays to Fridays and between 08.00 and 13.00 on Saturdays and not at all on Bank Holidays and Sundays. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the adjoining residential occupiers in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012. 10 All works on site shall take place in accordance with the following details which shall have previously been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of work: (a) Provision for loading/unloading materials. (b) Storage of plant, materials and operatives vehicles. (c) Temporary site access. (d) Signing system for works traffic. (e) Measures for the laying of dust, suppression of noise and abatement of other nuisance arising from development works. (f) Means of enclosure of the site. (g) The parking of vehicles of the site operatives and visitors Reason: In order to safeguard the amenities of the surrounding residential occupiers and to safeguard highway safety and the free flow of traffic in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012.
A15
Informative
1 In dealing with the application the Council has implemented the requirement in the National Planning Policy Framework to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive way. We have made available detailed advice in the form or our statutory policies in the Core Strategy, Supplementary Planning Documents, Planning Briefs and other informal written guidance, as well as offering a full pre-application advice service, in order to ensure that the applicant has been given every opportunity to submit an application which is likely to be considered favourably. 2 An acoustic report should be commissioned indentifying the noise sources that will be introduced that may affect local residents as a result of this development, an assessment of their potential impact and the identification of design specifications/schemes to mitigate against loss of amenity. Specific mention should be made to the justification of the height of any boundary treatment between the development and residential amenity that may act as a noise barrier and the location, volume and operational times of loudspeakers for station announcements.
A16
Development Control Committee
Date of Meeting: 12/02/2013
A Register No : 12/12754/FUL
Address : PROPOSED, 70-78 EDEN STREET, KINGSTON UPON THAMES
(c) Crown Copyright. All right reserved. Royal Borough of Kingston 2007. Licence number 100019285. [Please note that this plan is intended to assist in locating the development it is not the site plan of the proposed development which may have different boundaries. Please refer to the application documents for the proposed site boundaries.]
A17
Ward : Grove Description of Proposal : Refurbishment and extensions of existing retail store (Primark Nos 70-76) to provide a four storey retail building, with basement and roof level plant, including the demolition and redevelopment of 78 Eden Street (Friends Meeting House) Plan Type : Full Application Expiry Date : 12/02/2013
Applicant's Plan Nos :
Archaeological Desk Based Assesment Received 13/11/2012 BREEAM 2011 Pre-Assessment report Received 13/11/2012 Design & Access Statement Received 13/11/2012 Dra 3DR 581 AR 9901 3.1 Location plan Received 13/11/2012 Dra 3DR 581 AR 9902 3.1 Proposed site Received 13/11/2012 plan Dra 3DR 581 AR 9903 3 Ground floor in Received 13/11/2012 context Dra 3DR 581 AR 9951 3 Lower ground floor Received 13/11/2012 Dra 3DR 581 AR 9952 3 Ground floor Received 13/11/2012 Dra 3DR 581 AR 9953 3 First floor plan Received 13/11/2012 Dra 3DR 581 AR 9954 3 Second floor plan Received 13/11/2012 Dra 3DR 581 AR 9955 3 Third floor plan Received 13/11/2012 Dra 3DR 581 AR 9958 3 Fourth floor plan Received 13/11/2012 Dra 3DR 581 AR 9959 3 Elevations AA-BB Received 13/11/2012 Dra 3DR 581 AR 9960 3 Elevations CC-DD Received 13/11/2012 Dra 3DR 581 AR 9961 3 Section A-A Received 13/11/2012 Dra 3DR 581 AR 9962 3 Section B-B Received 13/11/2012 Dra 3DR 581 AR 9963 3 Section C-C Received 13/11/2012 Dra 3DR 581 AR 9964 3 Section D-D Received 13/11/2012 Dra 3DR 581 AR 9965 3 Roof plan Received 13/11/2012 Dra 3DR 581 AR 9966 3 Section E-E Received 13/11/2012 Dra 3DR 581 AR 9967 3 Section F-F Received 13/11/2012 Dra 3DR 581 AR 9969 3 Elevations AA-BB in Received 13/11/2012 context Dra 3DR 581 AR 9970 3 Elevations CC-DD Received 13/11/2012 in contact Dra 3DR 581 AR 9971 3 Site sections Received 13/11/2012
A18
Dra 3DR 581 AR 9974 3 Elevation AA in Received 13/11/2012 context Dra 3DR 581 AR 9975 3 Elevations in Received 13/11/2012 Context Caversham House Dra 3DR 581 AR 9977 3 Cavesham House Received 13/11/2012 grid line Dra 3DR 581 AR 9979 3 3D Visualisations Received 13/11/2012 Dra 3DR 581 AR 9981 3 Existing site plan Received 13/11/2012 Dra 3DR 581 AR 9982 3 Existing lower Received 13/11/2012 ground floor Dra 3DR 581 AR 9983 3 Existing ground Received 13/11/2012 floor Dra 3DR 581 AR 9984 3 Existing first floor Received 13/11/2012 Dra 3DR 581 AR 9985 3 Existing roof plan Received 13/11/2012 Dra 3DR 581 AR 9986 3 Existing elevations Received 13/11/2012 Dra 3DR 581 AR 9987 3 Existing elevations Received 13/11/2012 Dra 3DR 581 AR 9988 3 Existing sections Received 13/11/2012 Dra 3DR 581 AR 9989 3 Existing site section Received 13/11/2012 Dra 3DR 581 AR 9990 3 Existing elevations Received 13/11/2012 Dra 3DR 581 AR 9991 3 Existing elevations Received 13/11/2012 Draft Travel Plan Received 13/11/2012 Eden Street Footway Widen Details Received 14/01/2013 Executive summary of BREEAM 2011 Pre- Received 13/11/2012 assessment Report Executive Summer Sustainability & Energy Received 13/11/2012 statement Flood Risk Assessment Received 13/11/2012 Geo-Intrusive Report 02 Received 14/01/2013 HGV Deliveries Received 13/11/2012 Kingston St E02 Existing vehicle manoeuvre Received 13/11/2012 Kingston St E03 Proposed vehicle Received 13/11/2012 manoeuvre Land Contamination Report Received 13/11/2012 Lighting Details Received 14/01/2013 Loading Bay Lighting Received 14/01/2013 Noise Impact Assessment Jan 2013 Received 14/01/2013 Proposed Materials Received 14/01/2013 Proposed Materials - Product Datasheets Received 14/01/2013
A19
Site Waste Management Plan Received 13/11/2012 Standby Generator Details Received 14/01/2013 Supporting letter from agent dated Received 13/11/2012 11/11/2012 Sustainability & Energy Statement Received 13/11/2012 Transport Assessment Volume 1 Received 13/11/2012 Transport Assessment Volume 2 Received 13/11/2012 Waste Storage & Collection Received 13/11/2012
BASIC INFORMATION
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012
Development Plan: London Plan July 2011 LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012
Policies UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN BE1 Strat Areas of Spec Char + Prot of Key V BE19 Areas of Archaeological Significance DC3 Shopping Frontages in District Centres K1 New and Enhanced Shopping Facilities K15 Town Centre Road Network K9 Design Quailty in the Town Centre STR6 Conserving + Enhancing the Built Env
Total Floor Area 9921sq m
Previous Relevant History
04/12774/FUL Erection of replacement Quaker Permit 5 Year meeting house Condition and Conditions 07/02/2005 11/12906/FUL Refurbishment and extensions of Application existing retail store (Primark Nos 70- Withdrawn 76) to provide a four storey retail 13/03/2012 building, with basement and roof level plant, including the demolition and redevelopment of 78 Eden Street (Friends Meeting House) to provide an additional 5,550 sq m A1
A20
(retail) floorspace (revised descrip) 93/1608/FUL Erection in two phases of new retail Permit 5 Year unit measuring 4,365 sq.m Condition and Conditions 02/02/1995 98/3275/FUL Redevelopment to provide two Refuse Full storey building for retail use Application 04/10/1999, Appeal Allowed 26/07/2000 99/03366/FUL Redevelopment to provide a two Permit 5 Year storey building for retail use Condition and Conditions 14/08/2000 5989 Two-storey extension to form store Consent 26/04/1961 and classroom
Consultations
1. Neighbouring Occupiers : 107 notification letters have been sent to neighbouring occupiers and a notice displayed on site and in the local press. Two letters of objection have been received on grounds of the inappropriate demolition of the Friends Meeting House and loss of history and heritage, which is considered a good example of late Victorian architecture. The replacement concrete building would adversely affect the townscape of Kingston. 2. English Heritage (Archaeology) : no objection subject to safeguarding and recording conditions. 3. Environment Agency: The application should be assessed on the basis of standing advice. 4. Transport for London : No objection. TfL does not believe the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN). 5. As part of the development proposals there is an aspiration to relocate the taxi rank which is currently located outside of the existing store, onto the western side of Eden Street in between the junctions of Lady Booth Road and Ashdown Road. The taxi rank in question is probably one of the busiest taxi ranks in Kingston, and provides an essential service to the public, including disabled passengers and those with heavy baggage/prams, etc. It would not be ideal for the operation of this rank if it were to be moved, and as such TfL requests the submission of additional information to demonstrate why such a move is considered necessary before it can commit to such a proposal. 6. Should the taxi rank relocation be considered acceptable, then the full scope of the works required to install the new rank and reinstate the footway/ carriageway of the existing rank will need to be funded by the developer, and secured via a s278 agreement. 7. Additional cycle parking facilities should be provided in accordance with A21
the London Plan standards, which require 1 space per 300 sqm for staff and customers. These spaces should be provided in a secure and covered location. If these can't be provided on/ in close proximity to the site then consideration should be given to providing a contribution towards additional cycle parking facilities elsewhere within the town centre. 8. London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority - no objection in principle. 9. Environmental Health Officer: No objections subject to conditions. The noise report indicates that the plant can operate to the Councils standards, and should be reserved by condition. It is also appropriate to condition the hours of operation of plant so as not to operate during night time hours 23:00 hrs to 07:00 hours. Deliveries to the site should only take place between 7 am and 8 pm Mondays to Saturdays, with no deliveries on Sundays and Bank Holidays. 10. A land contamination report has been submitted which indicates that the potential for the presence of significant pollution is low, which appears to be a valid conclusion and it is appropriate to reserve details by conditions. It is also appropriate to include a condition to ensure that if human remains are found in the rear garden of the Meeting House (which has been used as a burial ground in the past) they are dealt with in an appropriate manner. 11. Neighbourhood Traffic Engineer: No objections subject to conditions. The store is within Kingston Town Centre with ample provision of car parking, and with excellent access to cycle routes and public transport with a PTAL value of 6a (excellent). Maintaining the existing car parking allocation is acceptable. A travel plan should be reserved by condition. 12. Deliveries: the store will receive 3 or 4 deliveries each day. The existing service yard is adequate to meet the requirements of the new store. 13. Eden Street Pedestrian Flows: Detailed analysis has been submitted with the application. The existing pedestrian comfort at the bus stop and rear of the taxi rank is already unacceptably high during peak times. The increase in pedestrian flows will result in more pedestrians experiencing restricted movement. As a result, the proposed new store does warrant the relocation of the taxi rank. To achieve this an acceptable solution will be sought with Transport for London. 14. The applicant has provided an appropriate sum for the Borough via a Section 106 agreement to be able to make improvements to Eden Street to reduce the footway congestion in the vicinity of the store. This sum will be used to relocate the taxi rank and make other improvements to Eden Street and improvements to the area around Kingston Train Station. Other measures that could be implemented to improve Eden Street could include reviewing the provision of footways and bus stops, relocating the bus stop shelter outside No. 78 Eden Street, widening the footway in the vicinity of the store and improving the provision of cycle parking. 15. Public Consultation by Applicants : The applicants have held a public exhibition on 23rd and 24th October 2012.
A22
Site and Surroundings
16. The site relates to the Primark store at 70-76 Eden Street and the adjacent building at 78 Eden Street, formerly occupied by the Friends Meeting House. The site is within the Primary Shopping Area, and on a Secondary Shopping Frontage as defined within in the K+20 Kingston Town Centre Action Area Plan 2008. The Friends Meeting House is designated as a Building of Townscape Merit. 17. Eden Street generally is of varied height and scale ranging between two and six storeys. The adjacent building at 62-68 Eden Street is a 5 storey corner building, the neighbouring building on the south side is three storey, there is a 6 storey building opposite at Neville House, and the buildings located further to the north of the site are predominately 3 storey. 18. The existing Primark Store is a substantial two storey building, with basement, comprising retail accommodation at basement, ground and first floor, with a gross internal floor area of 3650 square metres (net sales area of 2,600 sqm). The former Kingston Quakers Friends Meeting House at 78 Eden Street, is two storey, with part accommodation within the attic storey, with a floor area of 500 sqm. The meeting house dates from 1773, in red brick with Flemish bond. It was built on the edge of the town centre, with fields and open land to the rear. The meeting house itself has long been concealed from general view, first by the hall, vestibule and the room above which were added to the north front in the late nineteenth century, then by the larger hall, and finally by the caretakers house which was constructed in the 1930's. During the 1960's a two-storey rear extension was added to the rear of the building to form a store and a classroom. The meetinghouse itself is now only viewed from graveyard/garden at the rear of the site. A number of alterations such as new doors and windows have been made to the exterior of the meetinghouse over the years. Substantial internal alterations have also taken place. 19. The area to the rear was used as a Quaker burial ground from 1814-1850, and the surviving headstones are arranged around the edges of the garden. Remains were recently exhumed and reburied in Surbiton Cemetery, in anticipation of a move to a new site. 20. The Meeting House was found to be ill-suited to the modern needs of the Quakers, and uneconomic to run and maintain. The Meeting House has recently become vacant, with planning permission granted on 23/10/2012 for a new Meeting Hall and community centre in Fairfield East (12/12313FUL). Until the new development is complete, the Quakers are currently using the Richard Mayo Centre in Eden Street. 21. 70-76 and 78 Eden Street form part of Proposal Site P3, as set out in the K+20 Kingston Action Area Plan (AAP), which seeks to secure the comprehensive development and upgrading of the area. 22. There is a service road located immediately to the rear of the site, serving other commercial premises in Eden Street and Adams Walk. 23. The store is within Kingston Town Centre with ample provision of car parking, and with excellent access to cycle routes and public transport with a PTAL value of 6a (excellent). A23
24. The site is within an archaeological priority area and is within Flood Zone 2 (medium risk).
Proposal
25. The proposed scheme involves the refurbishment and extension of the existing retail property at 70-76 Eden street into the adjoining property at 78 Eden Street (Friends Meeting House) to form a "flagship" retail store comprising four storeys, plus basement and roof plant. 26. The gross internal floor area proposed is 9,921 sq m. The basement, ground, first and second floors provide retail trading space (6407 sqm), with new central escalator core; the third floor is to provide a stock room and staff facilities. The third floor is of a reduced footprint, and includes recessed areas to the rear and to the front (north). The existing concrete frame will be substantially retained. The existing roof slab will form the floor of an additional level of retail accommodation at second floor level. A further floor is constructed for ancillary (stock and staff) accommodation at level 3, with roof plant above contained within 2 plant areas within acoustic screens. 27. The front elevation is of contemporary design and will read as part four storey and part three storey, and is divided into 6 bays by the projecting framework. The ground floor includes a partially recessed design, in the form of a "saw tooth" frontage which incorporates two main entrances to the enlarged retail store. The ground floor shopfronts are to be fully glazed, with three display windows. Upper levels of the building will be clad with a precast concrete frame consisting of brick vertical piers with profiled reconstituted stone feature panels. The rear elevations will be in render with brick base and retains elements of the existing building. 28. Service access to the development is located to the rear of the building, as currently exists. It is accessed via a shared service road. A new and enhanced service core is proposed, with 3 goods lifts to the new storage area at third floor level. 29. Public Consultation by Applicants: The applicants have held a public exhibition on 23 rd and 24th October 2012.
Assessment
The main considerations material to the determination of this application are:
• Principle of Proposed Development • Impact on Character of Area • Impact on Neighbour’s Residential Amenity • Highways and Parking • Trees • Legal Agreements • Sustainability • Other Material Considerations
A24
Principle of Proposed Development
30. In this case the vitality and viability of Kingston Town Centre is the main consideration. 31. The National Planning Policy Framework ((2012) NPPF) is explicit in stating that planning policies (at the regional and local level) should be positive, promote competitive town centre environments and manage centres (including for growth) over the plan period. (Para 23, p.7). The document says that local planning authorities should provide customer choice and a diverse retail offer in their area. This approach forms part of the government's wider commitment to supporting economic growth through the planning system and proactively meeting the development needs of businesses. 32. The London Plan (2011) aligns with national policy and through Policy 2.15 states that development proposals in town centres should: (1) sustain and enhance the vitality and viability of the centre (2) accommodate economic growth through intensification and selective expansion in appropriate locations (3) support and enhance local competitiveness, quality and diversity of town centre retail, leisure, arts and cultural, other consumer services and public services (4) be in scale with the centre (5) contribute towards an enhanced environment and public realm and (6) reduce delivery, servicing and road user conflict. 33. The importance of ensuring that the scale of proposals appropriately relates to the size and role of the centre and its catchment is further emphasised in Policy 4.7. Policy 4.8 goes on to say that the Mayor, stakeholders and local authorities should support a successful, competitive and diverse retail sector which promotes sustainable access to goods and services that Londoners need. In addition, it states that a proactive approach to determining planning applications for retailing should be taken, in order that capacity for additional comparison goods retailing is brought forward, particularly in Metropolitan Town Centres such as Kingston. 34. Kingston's Core Strategy (2012) concurs with the national and regional approach through policies DM20 - New Retail Development and CS12 - Retail and Town Centres. DM20 says that the Council will consider applications for new retail development in designated centres favourably in order to meet identified need and ensure accessibility by public transport. Nevertheless, the issue of appropriate scale must be considered so that potential negative impacts on: climate change, pollution, transport accessibility, design and character, the amenity of surrounding residents, current regeneration projects and local employment are minimised. 35. CS12 states that the Council will maintain and enhance the attractive and distinctive character of Kingston Town Centre and its role as a Metropolitan Town Centre, through the implementation of the Kingston Town Centre Area Action Plan ((2008) K+20). A25
36. Policy K1 - New and Enhanced Shopping Facilities is the applicable policy within K+20. With partners, it seeks to provide 50,000 m2 gross additional retail floorspace for comparison goods by 2016, particularly through the development of Proposal Sites P1, P2 and P3. Furthermore, the policy clearly states that permission will be granted for landmark new retail facilities on the aforementioned Proposal Sites, provided they complement existing facilities and are fully integrated and well connected to them, so that the retail circuit for shoppers is improved. 37. It is important to note that 70-76 Eden Street forms part of Proposal Site P3 and has also been identified as an Opportunity Site. Opportunity Sites have been defined as sites that are: (1) of 0.25 hectares or above (2) developable and deliverable (according to the NPPF (2012) definition) (3) not under construction (4) not completed (5) not fully utilised 38. To date only 1,703 m2 of gross additional retail floorspace has been completed since the adoption of K+20. Therefore, the Council is short of meeting the local target set out in Policy K1, which seeks to provide 50,000 m2 gross additional retail floorspace for comparison goods by 2016. 39. In principle, the provision of a new flagship retail store within Kingston Town Centre is welcomed, and accords with the aims and objectives of Policies K1, K9 and part of P3b of the Kingston Town Centre K+20 Action Area Plan (AAP). It would contribute towards increasing the attraction of Eden Street as a shopping street and enhance the retail provision generally within the town centre.
Impact on Character of Area
40. Policies CS8 and DM10 of the LDF Core Strategy advise that proposals should relate well to their surroundings and be of a high standard of design to achieve a more attractive, sustainable and accessible environment. Policy DM12 also requires the protection of the boroughs heritage assets, which include listed buildings, conservation area and Buildings of Townscape Merit, and to respect features of special interest through consideration of form, scale, layout and detailed design. 41. This policy position is also endorsed in the K+20 AAP, which seeks the highest standard of design in all new development and to respect the town centre's distinctive character and historic environment. K9 also promotes the redevelopment and improvement of areas of lesser quality and the provision of distinctive exemplary quality contemporary architecture in key locations on various proposal sites within the town centre, including the Eden Quarter Area P2 and P3, in order to provide new landmarks to reinforce identity and improve legibility.
A26
42. The site falls within the Eden Quarter Study Area, and is within Proposal Site P3b, which is described as an area of poor quality environment, with a significant potential to upgrade the environment through refurbishment or redevelopment. 43. Of the general review of the town centre, the K+20 AAP analysis of the built fabric (plan 16) identifies the existing building occupied by Primark as of "average" quality, and the adjacent former Friends Meeting House, of "good " quality. This stretch of Eden Street from the junction of Lady Booth Road to Clarence Street (east side) is identified as a "dull" frontage, defined as large units and few doors; little diversity of function, many closed units, predominantly unattractive facades and few or no details. 44. The site has two characters - a frontage and a back-of house. While the back of the site has a service-yard character, overlooked by residential windows, the proposed development would have a frontage to Eden Street, a busy street in the Primary Shopping Area. The character of the street varies from retail to take-away/ restaurant and from bank/ building society to ice-cream parlour. The character of the street in daytime is dominated by people waiting at the numerous bus-stops for buses which tend to sever the two sides of the street, and directly in front of the site by taxis waiting in the taxi rank in front of the store. However, at this site, there is a strong connection by a pelican crossing across the road to the Eden Walk shopping centre. The current store attracts a high footfall, which together with the wave patterns of shoppers created by the pelican crossing, as well as the buses and other uses on the street, make for a frenetic and stressful street environment outside the site frontage. 45. In the evening and at night, street activity is reduced and the architecture of the buildings enclosing the street becomes more prominent. The architecture of the building in this street is as varied as the dates of construction of the buildings which enclose it, ranging from nineteenth century through to late twentieth century containing finely detailed, stonework to a 1920s bank, 1930s vernacular town centre, 1950s Modernist, 1970s towers, and 1980s design-and-build styles, and including on the site a locally listed building. Whilst there are tall buildings behind or adjoining the street, the street level scale is predominantly 2 or 3 storeys in height. 46. The former Friends Meeting House has been identified as a Building of Townscape Merit (BTM), which is a local classification. Objection has been raised to the loss of this building. In this respect it is noted that the building is in a poor state of repair. The Friends have relocated and the building is vacant. 47. Policy DM12 encourages the preservation of historic assets such as Buildings of Townscape Merit. The meeting house itself dates from 1773. However it has been substantially altered and extended. The principle of demolition of the existing building has been accepted at a previous appeal, which proposed the demolition of the building and the erection of a two storey retail unit. At that time the Department for Culture, Media and Sport were asked to consider spot listing the A27
building. However, English Heritage advised that the building did not merit listing given the alterations to the building, to which the Secretary of State agreed in November 1998. Planning permission was more recently granted for redevelopment of the site in 2005 to provide a new Meeting House, which included demolition of the existing building, (04/12774/FUL). 48. Its demolition remains justified because of the extent of alteration to the original building and also due to the degree to which the surrounding environment has isolated the building in townscape and streetscape scale, and the benefit of the redevelopment of the wider site. A condition has been applied to require an archaeological recording of the building, so that its significance is conserved at least in a historic environment record. 49. The loss of the former Friends Meeting House is regrettable. However, the principle of its loss has been established. The building is not listed or within a conservation area, therefore the Council has no control of its demolition. 50. The proposal aims to establish a new anchor store with a distinctive identity that re-affirms the existing scale of Eden Street. At street level the proposal seeks to provide an active frontage, with two entrances and display windows. At upper levels the facade is organised by a brick frame with reconstituted stone infill panels. Larger elements of glazing are provided at first floor level above the entrances to provide emphasis to the store entrances. The facade and fenestration is designed to reflect the rhythm of the historic plot widths in Eden Street and surrounding fenestration. The frame is to include all signage and facade lighting elements. 51. The new store would have two entrances on Eden Street to reduce the amount of people congregating outside the present single entrance. The façade, including the entrances, would be set-back from the back edge of footway in a saw-tooth arrangement to increase footway widths during busy periods. This would ease the current congestion outside the store and improve the retail character of the street. 52. The building has been designed to enclose the functional needs of the enlarged shop while providing a new façade to Eden Street. Retail use would activate the façade of the 3-storeys above ground, with staff accommodation facing Eden Street at third floor with storage space behind. The scale of the shopfront envelope steps from three storeys to four (there is a set-back plant level on top of the building) to mediate between the scales of the adjoining buildings. There is a grid pattern expressed across the elevation, which sets up a range of rhythms and harmonic proportions, which is carried down to ground to strengthen the character of the street with its historically relatively narrow plot widths. The façade would be viewed largely from three angles. From in front from Eden Walk, and from up and down Eden Street which because of the curves at both ends of the street makes the views narrow and on an angle. The façade would contain within this grid a series of recessed and angled components, rather like a A28
trompe-l'oeil effect painting, which would give the building a different appearance depending from which end of Eden Street it is viewed. Because of the relatively narrow street width, this would be a distinctive character in the design. 53. Within the grid the façade design follows a tri-partite order with a fully glazed ground storey to maximise promotional activity and to animate the street. The glazed element is raised up into the second storey to emphasise the entrances. The second layer to the façade, which suggests the trompe-l'oeil effect, is defined at the first and second floors which share a similar arrangement of shapes set within the grid pattern, and are made of either windows, reduced in width because of the need to use walls for displaying goods, or solid masonry panels. These windows would allow both glimpses out of the shop, as well as a connection from street level with the activity inside. The third floor in the facade, which contains offices, has larger windows, which reflects the use behind them. 54. The materials proposed indicate the use of a pre-cast concrete / cast stone cladding system and brick slips. No material details are submitted at this stage, and it is appropriate to secure by condition. A high quality finish and high quality materials are essential to the success of the facade treatment. 55. The rear areas would include render and brick with aluminium rainscreen cladding to plant rooms. This is considered appropriate to the back of house areas and helps make the building more legible. 56. In summary, the proposed development would result in the demolition of a BTM. However, it would result in a larger retail area for a shop in an important location. It would not disrupt the surrounding townscape in scale or design and would have its own character expressed in its façade. It is a well-considered design with an ordered and layered appearance which would improve the character of the shopping street, by its appearance, and the improved public realm at ground level. The proposal is considered to provide a distinctive contemporary building that relates appropriately with the scale and character of Eden Street and complies with the aspirations of Policy K9 of the K+20 AAP.
Impact on Neighbours’ Residential Amenity
57. Policy DM10 of the LDF Core Strategy seeks to safeguard residential amenities in terms of privacy, outlook, sunlight/daylight, avoidance of visual intrusion and noise and disturbance. 58. The nearest residential flats are at Caversham House, Lady Booth Road. The rear elevation of these single aspect flats look over the rear service area. There are also windows in the flank elevation of the neighbouring property at 80 Eden Street directly looking onto the development, which serve a dental surgery. Daylight and Sunlight 59. The building footrprint to the rear of Caversham House remains as
A29
existing, although it is of greater height and bulk, the additional mass is stepped back to respect lighting levels and outlook of flats in Caversham House. A report which examines the impact on Daylight and Sunlight on neighbouring properties has been submitted with this application, which references the BRE Guidelines (2011) on daylight and sunlight. The BRE Guide states that the diffuse daylight test to an existing building is adversely affected in the proposed scenario if either : (a) The Vertical Sky Component (VSC) measured at the centre of an existing main window is less than 27%, and less than 0.8 times its former value (b) The area of the working plane in a room which can receive direct skylight (no sky line (NSL)) is reduced to less than 0.8 times its former value. 60. Detailed reports have been submitted which demonstrate that with the development in place, of the 31 rear facing windows 4 windows would receive a VSC of less than 27%, and less than 0.8 times its former value. These windows are located on the western end of the rear elevation at first and second floor levels and are located above the vehicular access. All four of these rooms would achieve a VSC of 22% or greater. 61. Further analysis of the no sky line indicates that one of the identified four rooms will see an alteration to the NSL of 26.2 %, which is greater than the recommended figure of 20%. 62. The report has also examined the impact on sunlight to Caversham House, and the levels of sunlight received will be unaffected by the proposed development. 63. Overall, the proposal largely complies with the tests as set out in the BRE guidance. However, it is recognised that the proposal does not meet the criteria when assessed against 4 habitable rooms within Caversham House. Given this central town centre location the impact on these flats is considered relatively minor and is not considered to represent such an adverse impact upon their amenities as to warrant as a reason for refusal for this planning application. 64. A commercial property adjoins the northern boundary of the site, with dental practice at first floor which has windows over looking the site. A lightwell is included at second floor level and the third floor is recessed at this point to safeguard lighting levels to an acceptable degree. 65. Outlook: The proposal will have some impact on the outlook of flats in Caversham House, but given the degree of separation and the stepping back, it is not considered as significant as to warrant refusal of planning permission. 66. Privacy: The proposal would not result in any significant loss of privacy, although it would be appropriate to require obscure glazing to sections of the rear third floor canteen which is served by a window A30
on the rear elevation. 67. Noise: The proposal includes various plant elements including 1) Air handling plant - located on 3rd floor roof; 2) Chillers - 2 - located on 4th floor roof and 3) Standby generator - located on second floor roof area. The above equipment will only be operational during the store opening hours. Roof plant is contained with acoustic screens designed to safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residents. The environmental health officer has recommended conditions relating to noise emission and hours of use. 68. Servicing: Servicing for the development will utilise the existing service route from Lady Booth Road beneath the flats in Caversham House and would result in additional deliveries. As advised by the Environmental health Officer, it would be appropriate to restrict delivery hours. 69. It has been reported by RPS on behalf of the applicant that there will be up to 4 deliveries per day by HGVs between Monday to Saturday and that deliveries will not be before 07-00 hrs and not after 20-00 hrs with no deliveries on Sundays. It is further stated that the HGVS will wish to avoid congestion and hence the timing of the deliveries would be between 07-00hrs and 08-00hrs and between 18-00hrs and 20- 00hrs. Thus there would be 4 deliveries within this defined 3 hour period. The store currently has 2 deliveries per day (weekdays only), the usual delivery pattern being 09:30 and 11.30. The report confirms that Primark will endeavour to minimise noise from deliveries in accordance with best practice. 70. The consultant has measured noise levels and suggest that at a residential property the noise level would be around 56 dB( Leq) with the highest Lmax noise level of 69dB(A). The lowest measured background noise level being reported at 50dB . Hence the difference between the max level and the background is in the order of 19dB( worst case). Overall the Environmental Health Officer is satisfied with the findings, subject to condition including a restriction of delivery hours, only between the hours of 7am and 8pm Mondays to Saturdays. There shall be no deliveries or servicing on Sundays and Bank Holidays. These restricted delivery hours are the same as with the existing store. 71. The application will therefore not result in a detrimental effect on the amenities of adjacent residents and therefore the application is in accordance with Policy DM10 of the LDF Core Strategy.
Highways & Parking
72. Policies DM9 and DM10 of the LDF Core Strategy seek to ensure that new development has regard to local traffic conditions and does not contribute to congestion or compromise highway safety. Policy K15 of the AAP seeks to balance the competing need of the town centre
A31
road network, including the need to maintain traffic circulation and minimise congestion with opportunities to give greater priority to pedestrians, cyclists etc. It also seeks to ensure that service delivery is underground or from the rear. Policy K17 seeks to improve the pedestrian environment by continuing the programme of pedestrian priority schemes and improvements. 73. The application site is located within Kingston town centre and consequently has excellent transport links (PTAL 6a Excellent). There area a number of bus routes, which stop directly outside the application site. In addition the railway station is close by and there are a number of multi-storey car parks within a 5-minute radius. 74. The present building has 1 existing car parking space to the rear, which is to be used for staff drop-off (staff access is to the rear). A travel plan will be prepared and will inform a framework to be implemented by the store management. A small cycle store has been provided for staff, with provision for ten bikes, and staff shower facilities are provided at third floor level. Whilst it would be preferable to include a larger cycle store, it is recognised that there is very restricted external space around the building. A S106 contribution is to be provided, which could be used in part to secure additional cycle parking facilities generally within the vicinity of the site. 75. Service access to the development is located to the rear of the building, as currently exists. It is accessed via a shared service road. The service area is served by a new and enhanced service core with goods lifts to the new storage area at third floor level. 76. The proposal includes two customer entrances on Eden Street which are recessed in order to minimise congestion of the footway. The applicant is in dialogue with the Neighbourhood Traffic Engineer to review options to relocate the taxi rank elsewhere in Eden Street, and the application is supported by a S106 offer of a financial contribution towards public realm improvements in this part of the town centre, to include the relocation of the taxi rank. 77. The pavement at this location is relatively narrow, which is exacerbated by the presence of the existing taxi rank which is recessed into the footway in front of the northern portion of the existing store and the southern half of the Friends Meeting House. Due to this restricted width of the pavement, the impact of significant additional pedestrian movements in Eden Street is of particular concern. To address this issue it is proposed to relocate the taxi rank from outside the premises. TfL has expressed concerns in this respect, and requested the submission of additional information to demonstrate why it is considered necessary to move the taxi rank before they can commit to the proposal. The Neighbourhood Traffic Engineer advises that the existing pedestrian comfort at the bus stop and northern section of the taxi rank is already unacceptably high during peak times. With the projected increase in pedestrian flows, this will result in significant footway congestion between the bus stop and the second store entrance. Pedestrian comfort at the southern section of the taxi rank is acceptable now, and will remain acceptable A32
with the proposals. 78. Given the existing footway congestion and the location of the proposed second doors into the store, additional footway width is required outside of the store, and particularly at the northern end of the taxi rank and where the existing bus stop is located. 79. There is an existing bus stop shelter located outside No. 78 Eden Street which is set back approximately 1m from the front of the footway and a recessed taxi rank located outside the Primark Store. The existing bus stop shelter could be relocated to 0.5m back from the kerb edge to widen the footway outside No. 78 Eden Street by approximately 0.5m. This would give a footway width of approximately 3.0m at most times. 80. Relocating the taxi rank will allow for the footway outside of the store to be widened along the (approximately 25m) length of the taxi bay. This would increase the footway width outside the store from between 4.7m at the northern end of the taxi rank and 4.4m wide at the southern end of the taxi rank, (giving 4.3m and 4.0m respectively with buffers). This would increase the footway area substantially along the proposed frontage of the new store. 81. Officers have investigated the relocation of the taxi rank outside the store to an alternative location within Eden Street. Taxi driver representatives within Transport for London have been consulted and are reluctant for the taxi rank to be relocated from its current position without the provision of an acceptable alternative location and justification that relocating the taxi rank is required. Given the existing limited footway width and high levels of pedestrian conflict in the existing situation and with the proposed increase in pedestrian flows, it is considered that the existing footway is at or near to capacity at peak times. As a result, the proposed new store does warrant the relocation of the taxi rank. Officers consider that the taxi rank would be more appropriately located further south in Eden Street (outside BHS rear frontage), where the pavement is wider and footfalls are less. To achieve this, negotiations are taking place with Transport for London, however should negotiations not prevail it would not result in the scheme being unacceptable to pedestrians.
Trees
82. There are no significant trees in this site affected by the proposal. The rear of the Friends Meeting House is currently laid out as green/garden space. Legal Agreements
83. In accordance with Policies K20 and K23 of the K+20 AAP, S106 financial contributions will be required towards sustainable forms of transport, access, highway and community safety, and environmental improvements in the town centre; which as noted above could be directed towards highway improvements including relocation of cab rank, and environmental improvements in Eden Street and locality.
A33
84. The applicant has offered the following financial contributions: 85. £325,000 - Towards public realm improvements including moving of the taxi rank, wider Eden Street improvements and improvements to the area around the train station. 86. £75,000 - Towards sustainability measures to offset the fact that the building cannot achieve a higher BREEAM rating. 87. Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL): The proposal is liable for Mayoral CIL at a rate of £35 per sq.metre on the net increase in gross floorspace proposed 5050 m2 (£176,750). 88. The figure offered for public realm improvement falls short of the tariff set out in the SPD Planning Obligations Strategy (£200 per square metre towards sustainable place/environmental improvements). However, the offer is balanced against the identified costs associated with this development, the Mayoral CIL, and the Council's desire to improve Eden Street and the shopping offer, which will attract more shoppers and provide employment opportunities. Taking all these factors into consideration, it is considered that the offer put forward satisfactory, and will facilitate the relocation of the taxi rank and other environmental improvements in this part of the town centre.
Sustainability
89. DM1 of the Core Strategy encourages new build developments, including extensions and conversions to reach BREEAM "Excellent" standards. Where it is not possible to meet the standards, the Council may require developers to fund other methods to offset the environmental impact of the development. Core strategy policy DM2 Low Carbon Development requires that "where a District Heat Network is not in place, major developments should undertake a detailed investigation into the feasibility of establishing a District Heating Network with the proposed development as an anchor heat load or contribute towards such feasibility work". Core Strategy Policy DM3 Designing for Climate Change states that design proposals should incorporate climate change adaptation measures. 90. Energy Statement: The energy statement should outline the measures proposed to reduce the CO2 emissions of the proposed development by 25% above the requirements of the current Building Regulations (2010) Part L, therefore meeting the requirements of The London Plan 2011 policy 5.2 - minimising carbon dioxide emissions. Only 11.65% energy savings are demonstrated, which is a significant shortfall. As well as not meeting London Plan (2011) targets, this has serious implications on the failure to meet the required BREEAM standards. 91. The energy savings made during the 'be lean' stage of the statement are satisfactory, as the U-value improvements and CO2 savings are clearly stated and a full range of measures are considered. However, no further energy savings are found to be possible during the 'be clean' and 'be green' stages of the energy assessment, and as a
A34
result, the development falls short of CO2 emission reduction targets. 92. The contribution of £75,000 to meet the shortfall in energy performance of the development secured through a Section 106 agreement would therefore go towards offsetting CO2 emissions elsewhere in the borough. 93. BREEAM: A BREEAM Pre-assessment score of 'good' (48.6%) is well below the required standard as stated in Core Strategy Policy DM1, which requires major developments to achieve BREEAM Excellent rating (70%+) until 2013. The BREEAM Pre- Assessment clearly states where credits are awarded, but it does not explain nor give reasons why credits are not awarded or targeted. The report briefly mentions constraints as to why an improvement to the BREEAM score cannot be made, however it is not examined as to how this translates to individual credits. Therefore, prior to commencement of the development a further BREEAM Pre-Assessment Report should be submitted to provide the required level of clarification in this respect. 94. Notwithstanding, it is recognised that this application falls short of the normal BREEAM standards required for new development. However, it is acknowledged that the current proposal is not a complete new build development, and involves the retention and adaptation of a substantial part of the original retail building, which in itself is a more sustainable form of development. The existing building has minimal thermal insulation to the external envelope and the proposal includes upgrading both walls and roofing with external insulation systems. On this basis it is considered that an acceptable BREEAM standard for this enlarged building would be a BREEAM Very Good Rating. 95. In accordance with the SPD on Planning Obligations Strategy, failure to meet the required BREEAM Very Good standard would need to be mitigated by a contribution towards climate change mitigation and adaptation projects as outlined in the Council's Energy Strategy Annual Implementation Plans. To offset this shortfall the applicant has offered a financial contribution of £75,000 towards the climate change mitigation, as required by the SPD. 96. District Heating Networks: The sustainability and energy statement thoroughly investigates the possibility of this and demonstrates that the heat/ power demand profile of the proposed development does not correlate with what a CHP installation typically provides. There is not a sufficient heat demand to make a CHP anchor heat load installation efficient and economically feasible. Therefore the development satisfies all planning requirements with regards to Policy DM2 and District Heating Networks. 97. Designing for Climate Change: Whilst aspects of this policy are addressed throughout the submitted reports and statements, a comprehensive summary of how the development will consider adaptation to a changing climate is not included. Prior to commencement of the development a summary of climate change adaptation measures is required to be submitted for approval by the A35
Council. Other Material Considerations
98. Flooding: The site is within the Environment Agency's defined flood risk zone 2 (Medium Risk). Zone 2 comprises land assessed as having between a 1 in 100 and 1 in 1000 annual probability of flooding (1% - 0.1% in any year). 99. The NPPF states that the sequential approach should be used in areas known to be at risk from flooding and preference should be given to locating new development in Flood Zone 1. Paragraph 101 of the NPPF states that "the aim of the Sequential Test is to steer development to areas with the lowest probability of flooding. Development should not be allocated or permitted if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower probability of flooding." In terms of the sequential test, it is noted that this is an identified Proposal Site, is within a medium risk are (zone 2) and Primark owns the building and has an established presence on Eden Street. It is therefore considered that the sequential test is satisfied. 100. The proposed development is classified in flood risk terms as "Less Vulnerable" development. The Environment Agency have not commented on this proposal, other than to refer to their Standing Advice. 101. The application is accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment in accordance with Policy K24 of the K+20 AAP. The FRA has identified the primary source of this risk is the Hogsmill River and there is potential for shallow flooding of the Primark store under 1 in 100 years plus climate change conditions. The flood mitigation measures proposed include signing up to the Environment Agency Flood Warning service, and to provide written management procedures for staff. In accordance with Policy K24 of the K+20 AAP safe escape routes must be provided for evacuation in times of flood, and this will achieved via the two protected lobbies to the rear yard, where ground levels are above the 1 in 1000 year risk level of 8.34m AOD. These measures are ensured by condition. The proposed development does not include a sustainable urban drainage system and runoff will be directed to sewers, as existing. 102. Archaeology: The site is within an archaeological priority area. An Archaeological Desk Based Assessment has been submitted with the application. It finds that the archaeological potential of the site is very good for the Roman, Saxon, Medieval and Post Medieval periods; with a moderate potential for the Prehistoric periods, particularly Neolithic and Bronze Age. It considers that the building at the site of the Friends meeting House is unlikely to have a significant archaeological impact on underlying remains, although the burial ground used between 1814- 1955, is likely to have caused significant archaeological impact to a depth of 2 metres. The study concludes that the extension onto this part of the site would entail potential significant archaeological impact. Consequently extensive archaeological mitigation, including historic building recording and a programme of archaeological investigation would be required in advance of any demolition and ground works. On the basis of the submitted report, English Heritage's (Archaeology)
A36
advisor raises no objection, subject to appropriate conditions requiring archaeological recording and investigation.
Reason for Approval
103. The proposed retail development will provide for enhanced retail accommodation within the Primary Shopping Area. Whilst resulting in the loss of a Building of Townscape Merit, the building is not of appropriate quality to merit listing. The proposed development will not detract from the character and appearance of this part of the town centre, and will not significantly detract from the amenities of neighbouring residential occupiers. The proposal would not result in any unreasonable impact on traffic conditions or highway safety. The development includes an appropriate contribution towards the town centre transport and environmental improvements and for climate change mitigation measures. Accordingly the proposal complies with Policies K1, K9, K10, K20, K22, K23 and K24 of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames LDF K+20 Kingston Action Area Plan; Policies DM1, DM4, DM10, DM12, DM20, IMP3 and CS12 and Policies 4.7 and 4.8 of the London Plan.
Recommendation :
Approve subject to the completion of an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), as specified in the above legal agreements section, and the following condition(s): 1 The development hereby permitted shall be commenced within 3 years from the date of this decision. Reason: In order to comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990. (As amended) 2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Waste Storage & Collection, Supporting letter from agent dated 11/11/2012, Sustainability & Energy Statement, Executive Summer Sustainability & Energy statement, BREEAM 2011 Pre-Assessment report, Executive summary of BREEAM 2011 Pre-assessment Report, Archaeological Desk Based Assessment, Site Waste Management Plan, HGV Deliveries, Land Contamination Report, Flood Risk Assessment, Draft Travel Plan, Kingston St E02 Existing vehicle manoeuvre, Kingston St E03 Proposed vehicle manoeuvre, Transport Assessment Volume 2, Transport Assessment Volume 1, Dra 3DR 581 AR 9991 3 Existing elevations, Dra 3DR 581 AR 9990 3 Existing elevations, Dra 3DR 581 AR 9989 3 Existing site section, Dra 3DR 581 AR 9988 3 Existing sections, Dra 3DR 581 AR 9987 3 Existing elevations, Dra 3DR 581 AR 9986 3 Existing elevations, Dra 3DR 581 AR 9985 3 Existing roof plan, Dra 3DR 581 AR 9984 3 Existing first floor, Dra 3DR 581 AR 9983 3 Existing ground floor, Dra 3DR 581 AR 9982 3 Existing lower ground floor, Dra 3DR 581 AR 9981 3 Existing site plan, Dra 3DR 581 AR 9979 3 3D Visualisations, Dra 3DR 581 AR A37
9977 3 Cavesham House grid line, Dra 3DR 581 AR 9975 3 Elevations in Context Caversham House, Dra 3DR 581 AR 9974 3 Elevation AA in context, Dra 3DR 581 AR 9971 3 Site sections, Dra 3DR 581 AR 9970 3 Elevations CC-DD in contact, Dra 3DR 581 AR 9969 3 Elevations AA-BB in context, Dra 3DR 581 AR 9967 3 Section F-F, Dra 3DR 581 AR 9966 3 Section E-E, Dra 3DR 581 AR 9965 3 Roof plan, Dra 3DR 581 AR 9964 3 Section D-D, Dra 3DR 581 AR 9963 3 Section C-C, Dra 3DR 581 AR 9962 3 Section B-B, Dra 3DR 581 AR 9961 3 Section A-A, Dra 3DR 581 AR 9960 3 Elevations CC-DD, Dra 3DR 581 AR 9959 3 Elevations AA-BB, Dra 3DR 581 AR 9958 3 Fourth floor plan, Dra 3DR 581 AR 9955 3 Third floor plan, Dra 3DR 581 AR 9954 3 Second floor plan, Dra 3DR 581 AR 9953 3 First floor plan, Dra 3DR 581 AR 9952 3 Ground floor, Dra 3DR 581 AR 9951 3 Lower ground floor, Dra 3DR 581 AR 9903 3 Ground floor in context, Dra 3DR 581 AR 9901 3.1 Location plan, Dra 3DR 581 AR 9902 3.1 Proposed site plan, Design & Access Statement, Proposed Materials, Proposed Materials - Product Datasheets, Noise Impact Assessment Jan 2013, Standby Generator Details, Geo-Intrusive Report 02, Loading Bay Lighting, Lighting Details, Eden Street Footway Widen Details Reason: For avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. 3 Full details of the materials, colour and texture of the external finish of the building shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development commences and the development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved finishes. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance on completion of the development in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012. 4 The development shall be completed in accordance with the following details which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, before commencement of the relevant part of the development. (a) materials for all external finishes (including their colour and texture). (b) roof top railing and plant screens (c) treatment and layout of all parts of the site not covered by the approved buildings, including hard and soft landscaping. (d) details of fire escape door to Eden Street, including immediate area around it (e) open lattice security shutters. (f) shopsigns
A38
(g) high level clock Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance on completion of the development in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012. 5 Full details of the facade construction shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and to include details of head, cill, parapet and base levels; junctions to adjacent, intermediate, spandrel panels and windows; and details of windows at ground, first floor, second and third floor levels. The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance on completion of the development in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012. 6 No external lighting shall be installed within the service area without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the adjoining residential occupiers in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012. 7 Full details of the architectural lighting strategy to Eden Street shall be submitted and approved in writing prior to commencement of the development, and the scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance on completion of the development in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012. 8 All windows on the Eden Street frontage shall be maintained as clear glazed, without obstruction, except as otherwise shown on the drawings hereby approved. Reason: In order to maintain the continuity and interest of the shopping frontage. 9 The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until details of secure cycle parking facilities for the staff of the development hereby approved have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These facilities shall be fully implemented and made available for use prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted and shall thereafter be retained for use at all times. Reason: To ensure the provision of satisfactory cycle storage facilities and in the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy DM8 (Sustainable Transport for New Developments) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012.
A39
10 The site and building works required to implement the development shall be only carried out between the hours of 08.00 and 18.00 Mondays to Fridays and between 08.00 and 13.00 on Saturdays and not at all on Bank Holidays and Sundays. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the adjoining residential occupiers in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012. 11 Deliveries to the site and servicing shall only take place between 7am and 8pm Mondays to Saturdays. There shall be no deliveries or servicing on Sundays and Bank Holidays. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the adjoining residential occupiers in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012. 12 Considerate deliveries practices are to be implemented at all times, in accordance with methodologies identified in the report by RPS of HGV Deliveries. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the adjoining residential occupiers in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012. 13 No flues or pipework, other than rainwater pipes, shall be fixed to the elevations other than those shown on the drawings hereby approved or in accordance with details which shall have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012. 14 No fans, louvres, ducts or other external plant other than those shown on the drawings hereby approved shall be installed without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties and the visual amenities of the area in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012. 15 The rating level of the noise determined by the cumulative sound emissions of the plant hereby permitted shall be at least 5dBA lower than the existing background noise level at any given time of operation. The noise levels shall be determined 1m externally to any window at the nearest residential facade. Measurements and assessment shall be carried out in accordance with BS4142:1997. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of the
A40
neighbouring properties in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012. 16 Where emergency generation is installed and needs testing the Authority will permit the LAeq,T noise level from this plant to be no greater than 5dB above the existing background noise level when measured 1m externally to the nearest residential facade for the purpose of testing for up to 1 hour per month between 09-00 and 16-00 hours Monday to Friday only and not on a public holiday. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012. 17 No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme for investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall only take place in accordance with the detailed scheme pursuant to this condition. The archaeological works shall be carried out by a suitably qualified investigating body which shall have been approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: Important archaeological remains may exist on this site. Accordingly the planning authority wishes to secure the provision of archaeological excavation and the subsequent recording of the remains prior to development, in accordance with the guidance and model condition set out in PPG16 in accordance with Policy DM 12 (Development in Conservation Areas and Affecting Heritage Assets) of the LDF Core Adopted April 2012. 18 No development shall take place within the application site until the developer has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological recording of the standing historic building(s), in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: The historic building(s) is/are of intrinsic archaeological interest and any alteration or demolition of the historic structure(s) should be recorded before it/they are damaged or destroyed by the development hereby permitted. 19 The flood mitigation measures identified in the FRA prepared by Lees Roxbourgh shall be incorporated for the lifetime of the development and shall include the following measures: signing up to the Environment Agency Flood Warning service; to provide written management procedures on flood risk and evacuation for staff; and to provide safe escape routes for evacuation in times of flood via the two protected lobbies to the rear yard. Reason: In the interests of Flood Risk Management, in accordance with Policy K24 of the K+20 Action Area Plan and Policy DM4 A41
(Water Management and Flood Risk) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012. 20 A Green Travel Plan, containing a package of measures for reducing the number of vehicle trips to the site by staff and visitors, shall be implemented upon the development being brought into first use, and in accordance with details to be submitted to, and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. The Travel Plan shall include an action plan with timescales for the implementation of the proposed measures, details of an ongoing programme of monitoring and review and targets for reductions in car use. Monitoring and review shall include the submission of annual travel plan update report for the approval of the Local Planning Authority which contains the results of annually repeated staff travel surveys and demonstrates progress towards meeting targets. Reason: To ensure that sustainable transport methods are encouraged and implemented in accordance with Policies CS5 (Reducing the Need to Travel) and CS6 (Sustainable Travel) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012. 21 In the event that ground contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development that was not previously identified it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. An investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency's 'Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11', and where remediation is necessary a remediation scheme must be prepared and implemented, subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a verification report must be prepared and submitted for approval to the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In accordance with Policy K24 of the K+20 Action Area Plan and Policies DM4 (Water Management and Flood Risk) and DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012. 22 Prior to commencement of the development a further BREEAM Pre-Assessment Report shall be submitted and approved in writing and shall provide the following clarification: Detailed explanations for not awarding or targeting credits, particularly for Energy Efficient Transportation Systems (Ene06), Energy Efficient Equipment (Ene08), Enhancing Site Ecology (LE04). Reason: In the interests of sustainability and energy conservation as set out in Policies 5.2 (Minimising Carbon Dioxide Emissions) and 5.3 (Sustainable Design & Construction) of the London Plan (July 2011) and Policy DM1 (Sustainable Design and Construction Standards) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012. 23 Prior to occupancy of the development a BREEAM post construction review should be carried out, and within 1 year of A42
construction of the development a Final BREEAM certificate should be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The post construction review and certificate will ensure the development has fully complied with the requirements of the agreed BREEAM standard. Reason: In the interests of sustainability and energy conservation as set out in Policies 5.2 (Minimising Carbon Dioxide Emissions) and 5.3 (Sustainable Design & Construction) of the London Plan (July 2011) and Policy DM1 (Sustainable Design and Construction Standards) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012. 24 Prior to commencement of the development a summary of climate change adaptation measures shall be submitted and approved in writing. Reason: In accordance with Core Strategy Policy DM3 (Designing for Climate Change). 25 The levels of buildings, roads, parking areas and pathways within the site shall only be in accordance with details which shall have previously been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development is commenced. Reason: To ensure that the appearance and functioning of the development is satisfactory and to safeguard the amenities of adjoining occupiers in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012 and comply with Supplementary Planning Document ‘Access for All’ (July 2005). 26 Prior to commencement of any development on site, a Construction Management Plan shall be submitted to the planning authority for written agreement. The development shall only be implemented in accordance with the details and measures approved as part of the construction management plan, which shall be maintained throughout the entire construction period. Reason: In order to safeguard the amenities of the surrounding residential occupiers and to safeguard highway safety and the free flow of traffic in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012. 27 All works on site shall take place in accordance with the following details which shall have previously been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of work: (Specify as Appropriate) (a) Provision for loading/unloading materials. (b) Storage of plant, materials and operatives vehicles. (c) Temporary site access. (d) Signing system for works traffic. (e) Measures for the laying of dust, suppression of noise and
A43
abatement of other nuisance arising from development works. (f) Location of all ancillary site buildings. (g) Measures to protect any tree, shrubbery and other landscape features to be retained on the site during the course of development. (h) Means of enclosure of the site. (i) Wheel washing equipment. (j) The parking of vehicles of the site operatives and visitors (k) The erection and maintenance of security hoarding. (l) A scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works (Major Applications). Reason: In order to safeguard the amenities of the surrounding residential occupiers and to safeguard highway safety and the free flow of traffic in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012. 28 Before any occupation of the development hereby approved the windows in the rear elevation and situated on the third floor of the building hereby permitted, shall be constructed so that no part of the framework less than 1.7m above finished floor level shall be openable. Any part below that level shall be fitted with, and retained in, obscure glazing of a patterned type only. Reason: To protect the amenities and privacy of the occupiers of the adjoining residential properties in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012. 29 If human remains are found in the rear garden of the Meeting House (which has been used as a burial ground in the past) they are dealt with in an appropriate manner. Reason: To ensure that any human remains are dealt with in an appropriate manner and in the interests of proper planning.
Informative(s)
1 The development of this site is likely to damage archaeological remains. The applicant should therefore submit detailed proposals in the form of an archaeological project design. This design should be in accordance with the appropriate English Heritage guidelines, which can be obtained from English Heritage.
A44
Development Control Committee
Date of Meeting: 12/02/2013
A Register No : 12/12829/COND
Address : 180-190 LONDON ROAD AND 8-11, STATION ROAD, KINGSTON UPON THAMES
(c) Crown Copyright. All right reserved. Royal Borough of Kingston 2007. Licence number 100019285. [Please note that this plan is intended to assist in locating the development it is not the site plan of the proposed development which may have different boundaries. Please refer to the application documents for the proposed site boundaries.] A45
Ward : Norbiton Description of Proposal : Discharge of condition 2, facing materials and informative number 5, material details, of application number 11/12492/FUL. Plan Type : Conditions Expiry Date : 11/02/2013
Applicant's Plan Nos :
Material Schedule Received 15/01/2013 photograph Received 16/01/2013 Proposed colour elevations PL 005 P1 Received 15/01/2013
BASIC INFORMATION
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012
Development Plan : London Plan July 2011 LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012
Policies
LDF CORE STRATEGY CORE POLICIES CS 08 Character, Heritage and Design
LDF CORE STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT DM10 Design Requirements for New Developments DM11 Design Approach
Previous Relevant History
11/12492/FUL Redevelopment of site to provide Permit with conditions a building between 2 and 5 30/03/2012 storeys accommodating 130 student rooms, including communal areas, cycle parking and landscaped garden.
Site and Surroundings
1. The site is located south of the junction of London Road and Station Road. The application site comprises a number of buildings forming 180-190 Station Road and 8-11 Station Road. It is known as Kingston Plaza 1. 2. Planning permission was granted on 30 March 2012 for redevelopment of the site to provide a building between two and five A46
storeys accommodation 130 student rooms (11/12492/FUL).
Proposal
3. Condition 2 of planning permission 11/12492/FUL requires samples of facing materials including fenestration to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Development Control Committee specifically required that the materials to be reported to the committee for agreement. A sample board of the materials is provided. 4. The schedule of material as proposed are: • Facing bricks: Ibstock Arundel Yellow Multi Stock • Stone rainscreen cladding: Moleanos stone panels • Zinc rainscreen cladding: Quartz VM Zinc • Aluminium windows: mid grey frames. • Roofing material: Sarnafil, a single ply membrane, of a mid/dark grey colour.
Assessment
The only consideration material to the determination of this condition application is the impact on character and appearance of area. Impact on Character of Area
5. The general area contains a mix of building types and materials, with no consistency of tone or surface materials. The majority of the brickwork for the older buildings in the area are yellow London stocks, which are used in some of the Victorian buildings in Station Road and the railway viaduct in London Road. Red brick is also used in a number of other buildings close to the application site in London Road, and pale buff brickwork and coloured render is used in some of the more recent buildings London Road. 6. The approved building is of a contemporary design with flat roof, which is broken up into various elements of brickwork, glazing and rain screen cladding with stone facing. 7. The proposed Facing bricks are Ibstock Arundel Yellow Multi Stock. The bricks will be laid in a stretcher bond, with a light grey mortar that will be installed with a shallow recessed profile. This is a quality yellow facing brick, with some red tones, which is considered appropriate to the development and the location generally. 8. The stone rainscreen cladding is used in the raised corner feature and feature panels on Station Road. It is proposed to use Moleanos stone panels, which are cream in colour with a honed surface. This stone cladding is considered to provide an appropriate contrast with the brickwork. 9. The zinc rainscreen cladding, Quartz VM Zinc, this natural material is used at high levels to form fascia and wall panels. 10. The windows and curtain walling are constructed in powder coated aluminium, with mid grey frames. A47
11. The proposed roofing material is Sarnafil, a single ply membrane, of a mid/dark grey colour . The main roof of the scheme is divided into a number of levels, this reflects the stepped elevations. Each roof area will be flat, and will be finished in a durable single ply membrane. 12. Overall, it is considered that the proposed palette of materials is of an appropriate quality and composition both for the building and this part of London Road and Station Road.
Recommendation :
Approve condition 2: facing materials.
A48
Development Control Committee
Date of Meeting: 12/02/2013
A Register No : 12/14991/FUL
Address : FORMER KINGSTON VALE SERVICE STATION & 1A ROBIN HOOD LANE
(c) Crown Copyright. All right reserved. Royal Borough of Kingston 2007. Licence number 100019285. [Please note that this plan is intended to assist in locating the development it is not the site plan of the proposed development which may have different boundaries. Please refer to the application documents for the proposed site boundaries.]
A49
Ward : Coombe Hill Description of Proposal : Demolition of existing residential bungalow at 1a Robin Hood Lane and erection of a part single, part two, part three-storey building providing 119 units of managed student accommodation and including parking for 12 cars and 60 bicycles, refuse and storage facilities, communal areas and public realm (wider pavements and landscaping and tree planting) works. Plan Type : Full Application Expiry Date : 20/03/2013
Applicant's Plan Nos :
842.10.01.Exg.022.al Existing plan Received 28/12/2012 842.10.03.Exg.080.a1 View K Received 07/01/2013 842.10.03.Pln.001.a1.B Site Plan Received 19/12/2012 842.10.03.Pln.002.a1.B Landscaping Plan Received 22/01/2013 842.10.03.Pln.010.a1.B View A Received 07/01/2013 842.10.03.Pln.011.a1.B View B Received 19/12/2012 842.10.03.Pln.012.a1.B View C Received 19/12/2012 842.10.03.Pln.013.a1.B View D Received 19/12/2012 842.10.03.Pln.014.a1.B View E Received 07/01/2013 842.10.03.Pln.021.a1 Basement Plan Received 07/01/2013 842.10.03.Pln.022.a1.D Ground Floor Plan Received 22/01/2013 842.10.03.Pln.023.a1.B First Floor Received 19/12/2012 842.10.03.Pln.024.a1.B Second Floor Received 19/12/2012 842.10.03.Pln.026.a1 Basement Plan Received 07/01/2013 842.10.03.Pln.030.a1.B [1_100 Roof Plan Received 19/12/2012 842.10.03.Pln.030.a1.B Roof Plan Received 19/12/2012 842.10.03.Pln.040.a1.B Landscaping Section Received 19/12/2012 842.10.03.Pln.060.a1.B Elevations Kingston Vale Received 19/12/2012 842.10.03.Pln.061.a1.B Elevations Robin Hood Received 19/12/2012 Lane 842.10.03.Pln.062.a1.B Rear Elevation Received 19/12/2012 842.10.03.Pln.063.a1.B Elevation to Vale Parade Received 19/12/2012 & Elevation to Garden 842.10.03.Pln.064.a1.A Rear Elevation to Block B Received 07/01/2013 842.10.03.Pln.080.a1.A View K Received 07/01/2013
A50
842.10.03.Pln.081.a1 View L Received 07/01/2013 842.10.03.Pln.082.a1 View M Received 07/01/2013 842.10.03.Pln.a1.160.a1.A Detailed Elevation Received 07/01/2013 Arboricultural Report Received 19/12/2012 Compliance with Kingston University Received 19/12/2012 Requirements Covering Letter Received 19/12/2012 Design and Access Received 19/12/2012 Design and Access Statement Pt 1 Received 19/12/2012 DSO Assessment including Addendum Received 19/12/2012 Energy Statement including Addendum Received 19/12/2012 Framework Student Accommodation Management Received 19/12/2012 Plan Heritage Statement Pt 1 Received 19/12/2012 Heritage Statement Pt 2 Received 19/12/2012 Heritage Statement Pt 3 Received 19/12/2012 Heritage Statement Pt 4 Received 19/12/2012 Heritage Statement.pdf Received 19/12/2012 Landscape Statement Received 19/12/2012 Landscape Statement Addendum Received 19/12/2012 Landscape Statement Pt 1 Received 19/12/2012 Landscape Statement Pt 2 Received 19/12/2012 Noise Assessment Received 19/12/2012 Noise Assessment Addendum Note Received 19/12/2012 Notice Under Article 11 Received 19/12/2012
BASIC INFORMATION
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012
Development Plan: London Plan July 2011 LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012
Policies LONDON PLAN JULY 2012 LP 2.7 Outer London: economy LP 3.5 Quality and design of housing development LP 3.8 Housing choice A51
LP 5.1 Climate change mitigation LP 5.2 Minimising carbon dioxide emissions LP 5.3 Sustainable design and construction LP 6.13 Parking LP 6.3 Assessing effects of development on tran LP 6.9 Cycling LP 7.14 Improving air quality LP 7.15 Reducing noise and enhancing soundscapes LP 7.2 An Inclusive environment LP 7.3 Designing out crime LP 7.4 Local character LP 7.5 Public realm LP 7.6 Architecture LP 8.2 Planning obligations
LDF CORE STRATEGY CORE POLICIES CS 01 Climate Change Mitigation CS 02 Climate Change Adaptation CS 03 The Natural and Green Environment CS 05 Reducing the Need to Travel CS 06 Sustainable Travel CS 07 Managing Vehicle Use CS 08 Character, Heritage and Design CS 09 Waste Reduction and Management CS 10 Housing Delivery CS 15 Future Needs of Kingston University, Kin
LDF CORE STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT DM01 Sustainable Design and Construction Stan DM02 Low Carbon Development DM03 Designing for Changing Climate DM06 Biodiversity DM08 Sustainable Transport for new Development DM09 Managing Vehicle Use for New Development DM10 Design Requirements for New Developments DM11 Design Approach DM12 Development in Conservation Areas and Af DM13 Housing Quality and Mix DM14 Loss of Housing
LDF CORE STRATEGY IMPLEMENT POLICIES IMP3 Securing Infrastructure
Previous Relevant History
04/14932/CAC Demolition of canopy and sales Grant CAC with shop and removal of underground Conditions storage tanks. 03/03/2005 06/14884/OUT Demolition of existing dwelling. Refuse Outline Erection of 1 x pair of semi A52
detached, two storey houses 27/11/2006 (Outline application with details of layout and access only to be determined at this stage) 12/14659/FUL Demolition of existing residential Refuse Full bungalow at 1a Robin Hood Lane Application and erection of a part single, part 17/12/2012 two, part three, part four-storey building providing 133 units of managed student accommodation and including parking for 15 cars and 67 bicycles, refuse and storage facilities, communal areas and public realm (wider pavements and landscaping and tree planting) works. 98/6244/FUL Installation of underground petrol Permit 5 Year storage tanks and pipework to Condition and replace existing Conditions 23/09/1998
Consultations
1. Neighbour Notification - Site and Press notices have been displayed and 302 neighbours notified - 1 response of support has been received raising the following points : • The proposal is an ideal use for the site . • It will create jobs and stimulate the local economy . • It will help to keep local shops , bus routes and services alive . 2. Summary of Objections • Two petitions of objection with 55 and 215 signatures respectively and 203 responses have been received raising the following concerns: • The proposal is an inappropriate use for the site and has no benefit to the local community. • University accommodation is not in short supply and there is no local demand. • Kingston University is not involved in this private venture. • Excessive in density leading to an overdevelopment of the site and overcrowding in the area. • Visual eyesore which is overly dominant and of a mass and scale that is wholly out of keeping with the immediate area, street scene and detrimental to the Conservation Area. • Loss of family housing. • Increase in traffic congestion. • Prejudicial to highway and pedestrian safety. • The proposal will destroy the peaceful nature of the area. • Overlooking and loss of privacy to neighbouring properties in Kingston Vale, Robin Hood Lane, Robin Hood Way, Derwent Avenue, Bowness Crescent and Ullswater Crescent. A53
• Forward of the established building lines on Kingston Vale and Robin Hood Lane. • Increase in pressure on on-street parking demand and will lead to illegal parking on Kingston Vale, Robin Hood Lane and surrounding roads. • Noise and disturbance from comings and goings of students and late night parties on the site. • The proposal will have uncomfortable relationship and negative impact on neighbouring properties. • Increase in litter. • Potential slum created. • Lack of amenities for students. • Pollution and smell nuisance. • Loss of light. • Impact on surface water drainage and foul sewer capacity. • The site has poor transport links • Loss of landscaping. • Increase in pressure on public transport and local amenities. • Increase in crime, anti-social behaviour and graffiti. • Adverse impact on human health from existing land contamination. • Devaluation of properties. • Lack of contribution towards sustainable travel and environment in the area. • Proposal is in breach of restrictive covenants. 3. Borough Environmental Health - no objection subject to conditions relating to noise, site works, external lighting, drainage, land contamination and remediation and a Construction Environment Management Plan being attached to any permission granted. 4. Climate Change and Sustainability - no objection subject to conditions . 5. Kingston Vale Residents Association - objection to the proposal for the following reasons: • The combined mass and scale of the building fronting Kingston Vale would sit uncomfortably with neighbouring properties and within the street scene to the detriment of the character and appearance of the Kingston Vale Conservation Area. • The proposal would completely dominate the area and would be a horrific blot on the landscape. • It would result in serious parking problems in Kingston Vale and congestion at the junction of Robin Hood Lane and Kingston Hill. • Increase in traffic resulting in a danger to children attending the Robin Hood School. • The proposal would be contrary to the restrictive covenant that has been placed on the land. • There is no demand for additional student accommodation as there has been a dramatic decrease in student numbers by 4356. • Overlooking and loss of privacy to neighbouring residents in the following identified roads - Robin Hood Lane, Robin Hood Way, Derwent Avenue, Ullswater Crescent, Bowness Crescent, Keswick A54
Avenue, Grasmere Avenue, Rydal Gardens, Windermere Road and Vale Parade. • Loss of light to neighbouring residents in the following identified roads - Robin Hood Lane, Robin Hood Way, Derwent Avenue, Ullswater Crescent, Bowness Crescent, Keswick Avenue, Grasmere Avenue, Rydal Gardens, Windermere Road and Vale Parade. • The proposal will seriously affect residents' lives and wellbeing. • Noise and disturbance. • Significant risk to human health from contamination. • Adverse impact on soil and ground water. 6. Kingston University - The University is currently progressing a phased approach to securing additional student residential accommodation . It is not therefore able to comment on individual sites outside of any procurement process as the University has to be fair and transparent and comply with the public sector procurement regulations . The University has however published guidance on its requirements for student residential accommodation on its web page . The University's requirement for Student Halls accommodation is also informed by its recruitment strategy , and represents a modest proportion of the total student population . 7. Maldens and Coombe Conservation Area Advisory Committee - Objection for the following reasons: • The bulk of the development is considered to be out of keeping with the character of properties in the wider conservation area which is mainly characterised by small scale (mostly but not exclusively 2 storey) domestic buildings. • The new building is out of sympathy with the cottages in Robin Hood Lane in terms of the large expanses of brickwork, the size and shape of windows and steeply pitched roofs. The two storey building (with an additional floor of accommodation in the roofspace) would also appear bulky and out of character with the much lower cottages next door. • The main elevation facing Kingston Vale is considered very repetitive and bulky, with uncharacteristically large window openings and poorly detailed tall brick gables. Gables do feature in the conservation area but not in such a regular fashion. All these features are out of character with the Conservation Area. • The proposed landscaped paved area fronting Kingston Vale shows a complete lack of information, being extremely repetitive with only a scattering of new trees, a few benches and nothing else. A sensitively designed landscaping scheme across this wide area would do a huge amount to improve any new building on this site. • The heart of the problems shown by this proposal is the sheer number of student flats. This number is driving the design rather than a sensitive approach being taken which should look at the site and its neighbouring properties first, then propose elevations which will fit more comfortably adjacent to those neighbours and within the general neighbourhood. 8. Neighbourhood Traffic Engineer - no objection to the proposal subject to conditions requiring the approval of a Travel Plan, Car Park Management Plan, Framework Student Accommodation Management Plan, cycle A55
parking, working scheme, drainage and informatives relating to material deliveries, vehicular provisions and highway works being attached to any permission granted. 9. Southern Gas Network - no objection to the proposal. 10. Thames Water - no objection to the proposal. 11. Transport for London - no objection to the proposal subject to a Travel Plan being secured by a legal agreement. 12. Trees and Landscaping - no objection to the proposal subject to a landscaping condition being attached to any permission granted. 13. Building Control - no response received. Any response received to be reported to Committee as late material. 14. Borough Valuer - no response received. Any response received to be reported to Committee as late material. 15. Green Spaces - no response received. Any response received to be reported to Committee as late material. 16. Housing Services - no response received. Any response received to be reported to Committee as late material. 17. Kingston Centre for Independent Living - no response received. Any response received to be reported to Committee as late material. 18. London Fire and Civil Defence Authority - no response received. Any response received to be reported to Committee as late material. 19. UK Power Networks Operational Property and Consents - no response received. Any response received to be reported to Committee as late material.
Site and Surroundings
20. The application site comprises the existing residential bungalow at 1A Robin Hood Lane and a vacant parcel of land, formally occupied by a petrol station (known as Vale Service Station), on the southern side of Kingston Vale at the junction with Robin Hood Lane. There are residential properties to the north, south and west and commercial with residential above to the east. 21. The Vale Service Station part of the site is located within the Kingston Vale Conservation Area with the entire site being within a Strategic Area of Special Character and within 100 metres of a Greenspace Information for Greater London (GiGL) Habitat area (Richmond Park). The site has a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 1b (Very Poor).
Proposal
22. The application is for the demolition of existing residential bungalow at 1a Robin Hood Lane and the erection of a part single, part two, part three- storey building providing 119 units (59 studio and 60 cluster units) of managed student accommodation with parking for 12 cars (including 2
A56
disabled spaces) and 60 bicycles, refuse and storage facilities, communal areas and public realm (wider pavements and landscaping and tree planting) improvement works. 23. The proposed development would comprise 3 built elements: a three- storey building fronting Kingston Vale (Block A); a two-storey building with accommodation within the roofspace and a basement (providing a common room, WC, laundry and plant room) fronting Robin Hood Lane (Block B) and linked to Block A by a single storey front entrance; and a single storey building to the rear of the site located on the boundaries with Nos. 1 Robin Hood Lane and 19 Robin Hood Way (Block C). 24. The proposed main building (Block A) would be set back between approximately 8.2 metres (at its closest points to the junction with Robin Hood Lane and No.5 Vale Parade) to 14.8 metres (at its closest point to No.5 Vale Parade) from Kingston Vale and would have 2 side bookend gables with 9 gabled bays (4 of which would be larger gabled bays with 2 smaller bays in between with a centrally located bay being flat roofed at roof level) . It would measure approximately 50 metres at its widest point, 16.8 metres long and 9.8 to 11.4 metres in height (as measured from Kingston Vale) and would contain 96 units with 60 cluster units and 36 studio units provided. The cluster units would each have en-suite bathrooms with access to 2 kitchen/communal areas on each floor with the studio units having their own kitchen and en-suite bathroom areas. 25. The Block B building would be set back approximately 12 to 12.7 metres from Robin Hood Lane and would also have a central gable bay feature within each of its elevations. It would measure approximately 11.5 metres wide, 11.5 metres long and 8.5 metres (as measured from Robin Hood Lane) to 9.3 metres (to the rear) in height. It would contain 15 studio units provided at ground to third floor levels with each studio unit having their own kitchen and en-suite bathroom areas. The basement would provide a common room, WC, laundry and plant room and will be accessible by a lift. 26. Both Blocks A and B would have pitched roof slopes with a flat roof at ridge level (Block B would have a green roof flat area) and would be built in yellow and red London stock bricks with powder coated window frames and a slate roof. The single storey rear building (Block C) would be built in yellow stock brick with a flat green roof and would measure 26.9 metres wide, 6.6 metres long and 2.7 (to the rear) to 2.9 metres (to the front) high and housing 8 studio units with each having their own kitchen and en-suite bathroom areas. 27. Car parking for 12 vehicles in the form of 2 areas - a rear car parking area for 8 vehicles accessed from Kingston Vale and a car parking area to the front of Block B for 4 vehicles (including 2 disabled spaces). Cycle parking for 60 bicycles would be provided between Blocks A and C accessed from Kingston Vale and a servicing/delivery bay would be provided in front of Block B accessed from Robin Hood Lane. A single storey enclosed refuse store would be provided to the side of Block B adjoining the boundary with No.1 Robin Hood Lane. This would measure 3.7 metres in height (2.4 metres to eaves level).
A57
28. The application is a resubmission of the scheme previously refused planning permission under application 12/14659/FUL. The proposal includes the following main changes: • A reduction in the overall number of managed student accommodation units proposed on the site from 133 (73 studio and 60 cluster units) to 119 (59 studio and 60 cluster units) units. • A reduction in the scale and mass of the three-storey building fronting Kingston Vale (Building A) with changes to its design and appearance. This involves the removal of a floor of accommodation within the roofspace and a reduction in height from between 11.6 to 12.1 metres to 9.8 to 11.4 metres (as measured from Kingston Vale). • An increase in the width of the rear single storey building (Building C) from 21.4 to 26.9 metres. • A reduction in the number of car parking spaces from 15 to 12 (a provision of 10% as opposed to 11% for the total number of units). • A reduction in the number of cycle parking spaces from 67 to 60. • The provision of an additional vehicular access point onto Robin Hood Lane.
Assessment
The main considerations material to the determination of this application are:
• Principle of Proposed Development • Impact on Character of Area • Impact on Neighbour’s Residential Amenity • Highways and Parking • Trees • Legal Agreements • Sustainability • Other Material Considerations
Principle of Proposed Development
29. The Council's Housing Strategy 2011 to 2015 'Providing a long-term strategic housing framework to plan and deliver improved housing for the people in Kingston' highlights that students represent an important component of the population in Kingston and make an important contribution to the local economy and the vibrancy of the Borough as a place. The University estimates its student total in the Borough as 9,200 including those in halls of residence. Many students are housed in the private rented sector but there is a requirement for additional purpose-built accommodation for students, which is important in providing a focus for engagement with the wider community and allows for the exercise of the duty of care to students. 30. Paragraph 6.163 of the LDF Core Strategy states that the Council and University have identified a need for an additional 2,500 managed student bedspaces. Provision has been made for around 500 bedspaces within Kingston Town Centre and for 300 bedspaces
A58
within the Hogsmill Valley adjoining the existing Clayhill Campus. There is a remaining need for 1,700 bedspaces. An assessment of recent student housing completions, approvals, current undetermined applications and pre-applications shows that the need for 1,700 bedspaces has not been met and therefore this proposal for 119 units will assist with meeting the needs of the University. Whilst the University's preference is for future provision to be on sites with at least 200 bedspaces, smaller sites also have a role to play and the potential to contribute towards meeting the needs for managed student accommodation. Sites should be suitably located, with good access to the existing campus. 31. Policy CS15 of the LDF Core Strategy recognises this shortfall of managed student accommodation for Kingston University and the impact that this has on the local housing market. As such, it advises that the Council will continue to work with the University to help deliver suitable managed student accommodation within appropriate sustainable locations such as Kingston Town Centre. 32. The application site is within a location which has a PTAL rating of Very Poor. It is, however, within an established residential area and within walking distance of 2 Kingston University campuses (Roehampton Vale and Kingston Hill) with easy access to the local bus network. The principle of the demolition of 1a Robin Hood Lane and provision of student accommodation on the site would not in itself conflict with any policies within the LDF Core Strategy subject to it complying with other relevant policies in the Strategy.
Impact on Character of Area
33. The site is located within the Kingston Vale Conservation Area. Policy DM12 of the LDF Core Strategy advises that the Council will respect features of local importance and special interest through the consideration of form, scale, layout, and detailed designs of a site, area or streetscape. Policies CS8 and DM10 of the LDF Core Strategy also advise that proposals should relate well to their surroundings and be of a high standard of design to achieve a more attractive, sustainable and accessible environment. 34. This part of the Kingston Vale Conservation Area has been described as an early Victorian village on the historic London to Portsmouth Road. The village is made up of an eclectic mix of mainly small-scale housing and community uses. It is mainly formed by 2 storey terraced houses on narrow plots around 5 metres wide built using traditional brick with slate or tiled roofs. This produces a strong vertical rhythm to the street which is further emphasised by the skyline which includes gables and bays onto Kingston Vale e.g. Beverley Cottages. It is however noted that on the site of the former Duke of Cambridge Public House (now known as Fusion Court), 16 two bedroom flats were allowed on appeal and these are two and a half storeys high with elements of flat roof. 35. The properties on the Southern side of Kingston Vale, Vale Parade and St John's Terrace (situated to the North East of the site) are set A59
back approximately 9 metres from the back edge of the footway. On the opposite side of Kingston Vale, the buildings are generally set 3 metres from the back edge of the footway, although it is noted that the more recently approved new dwellings on the Robin Hood Public House (now known as Robin Hood House) site are set back between 6.7 metres and 11.8 metres from the back edge of the footway. At its closest point to No.5 Vale Parade, the proposal would be set back between 2.8 (from the side gable bay housing the Eastern staircase access) and 4 metres from the Eastern boundary before stepping forward by 3.4 metres from the front building line of Vale Parade. 36. No objection in principle is raised to the proposed development being set forward of the buildings in Vale Parade and St John's Terrace. The proposed set back of the proposal from Kingston Vale would itself respect the pattern of development found within the Kingston Vale Conservation Area providing an opportunity for widening the existing pavement and pavement tree planting and landscaping to the benefit of the Kingston Vale and Robin Hood Lane street scenes. 37. The main Block A building has been redesigned and reduced in overall mass and scale from the building originally proposed under planning application 12/14659/FUL. Its height has been reduced from 11.6 - 12.1 metres to 9.8 - 11.4 metres (as measured from Kingston Vale), a floor of accommodation has been removed from the roofspace and a lower flat roofed element has been introduced towards the middle of the building to break up the overall mass of the façade. Originally being similar in height to Vale Parade, the building would now be 2.1 metres lower in height at its closest point before gradually stepping up by 1.2 metres and then stepping back down towards to the junction with Robin Hood Lane. The building would reference the strong vertical rhythm seen within the street scene and would emphasise this with the use of gabled bay features. There are examples of flat roofed buildings (such as Fusion Court and Robin Hood House) within the Conservation Area that form part of its character. A number of views have been provided with the application that demonstrate the flat roofed areas proposed would be limited from public vantage points and neighbouring properties. 38. The proposed Block A building would now respect the distinctive 2 to 3 storey character of the conservation area. Its design, scale and mass would sit comfortably with neighbouring properties and would not appear out of character within the context of Kingston Vale. It would act as an appropriate transition between the more densely developed Kingston Vale and the predominantly two-storey suburban houses of Robin Hood Lane to the south. The reduction in the overall scale and mass of this part of the development fronting Kingston Vale addresses the concerns previously raised in planning application 12/14659/FUL and the building would not appear at odds within the street scenes of Kingston Vale and Robin Hood Lane. 39. With respect to Block B, whilst this two-storey building would step 2.2 metres forward of the prevailing building line on the Eastern side of Robin Hood Lane it would be set back approximately 7.3 metres from
A60
the front face of No.1 Robin Hood Lane and would act as an appropriate transition between the more densely developed Kingston Vale and the predominantly two-storey suburban houses of Robin Hood Lane to the South. The building would sit comfortably with neighbouring properties and within the Robin Hill street scene and would have no adverse impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Similarly, given the rear Block C building would be single storey in height and not visible in public views from either Kingston Vale or Robin Hood Lane, this too would have no adverse impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. 40. The buildings facing Kingston Vale and Robin Hood Lane have been designed in a traditional style with pitched roofs and gabled elevations to reflect the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The intended larger powder coated window openings would maximise the amount of light entering the proposed units to the benefit of future occupiers and would add visual interest within the streetscene. The yellow and red London Stock brick and grey slate intended to be used in these buildings would also match those found within the surrounding area. A condition requiring full details of the intended materials including samples is considered to be appropriate to ensure the development reflects the palette of materials found within the surrounding area. 41. The proposal also includes significant improvements to the public realm directly adjacent to the site, along both Kingston Vale and Robin Hood Lane. The currently narrow pavements on Kingston Vale and Robin Hood Lane would be significantly widened with street tree planting proposed to the benefit of the streetscene and conservation area. An appropriate landscaping scheme for the site and pavement tree planting would be secured by condition and S106 legal agreement. 42. The proposed development would sit comfortably with neighbouring properties and within the street scenes of Kingston Vale and Robin Hood Lane and would preserve the character and appearance of the Kingston Vale Conservation Area. As such, it is considered to be in accordance with Policies CS8, DM10 and DM12 of the LDF Core Strategy.
Impact on Neighbours’ Residential Amenity
43. Policy DM10 of the LDF Core Strategy seeks to safeguard residential amenities in terms of privacy, outlook, sunlight/daylight, avoidance of visual intrusion and noise and disturbance. 44. The nearest residential properties to the application site are located in Kingston Vale (Vale House, Orchard House, Faithful Cottage and Firswood House) to the north, Vale Parade (No.5) to the east, Robin Hood Way (No.19) and Robin Hood Lane (No.1) to the south and Kingston Vale (Nos. 241 and 241a) to the west. 45. The proposed main Block A building would be located approximately A61
2.8 to 4 metres from the nearest residential building to the East in Vale Parade (No.5), 20.5 metres from those in Kingston Vale (Vale House, Orchard House, Faithful Cottage and Firswood House), 25 metres (15.5 metres from the rear garden boundary) from those in Robin Hood Way (No.19) and 24 metres from the nearest property in Kingston Vale (No.241a) and 20.5 metres from those in Robin Hood Lane (No.1). 46. The Block B building would be set back approximately 7 metres from the flank wall of the nearest residential property in Robin Hood Lane (No.1) and between 1.2 (to the rear) and 6.6 metres (to the front) from its side boundary and 27 metres from the nearest property in Kingston Vale (No.241a). The rear building would be located directly on the rear boundary with No.19 Robin Hood Way and No.1 Robin Hood Lane increasing the height on the boundary by 0.3 metres from 2.4 to 2.7 metres. 47. Given the siting of the buildings on the site and the distances to neighbouring residential properties, it is considered that there would be no significant impact in terms of loss of daylight and sunlight to neighbouring residential properties. The proposal does not breach either the '25 degree' or '45 degree' tests, as taken from the nearest residential properties on Vale Parade, Kingston Vale, Robin Hood Way and Robin Hood Lane, in compliance with British Research Establishment (BRE) guidance. A BRE Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing Assessment has also been provided with the application which concludes that the proposal would not result in any significant loss of sunlight/daylight to neighbouring residential properties. 48. Whilst the proposed main Block A building would project 3.4 metres beyond the first and second floor front habitable room windows of the nearest residential flats (No.5) above the commercial units in Vale Parade to the North-East, it would be set back by 4 metres from the front face of the building and would not project beyond its rear elevation thereby ensuring it would not appear overbearing or result in any loss of outlook or privacy to the occupiers of the first and second floor flats at 5 Vale Parade. Similarly, with a setback of approximately 15.5 from the rear boundary with the gardens of No.1 Robin Hood Lane and Nos . 17 and 19 Robin Hood Way (21 metres, 26 and 25 metres from the properties themselves) and 21 metres from the nearest residential properties in Kingston Vale, the Block A building would also have no adverse impact on the residential amenities of these neighbouring occupiers in terms of appearing visually overbearing or resulting in any undue overlooking and loss of privacy. 49. The proposed Block B building would be located largely along the flank wall of No.1 Robin Hood Lane. Given there are no windows proposed within its South-Eastern side elevation and it would be set back by approximately 7 metres from the flank wall of No.1 behind the existing mature tree planting which is to be retained, the proposed Block B building would not appear visually overbearing or result in any undue loss of privacy to the occupiers of this neighbouring
A62
property. 50. Similarly, with an overall increase in height on the rear boundary of 0.3 metres behind the existing tree planting which is to be retained and no windows proposed within its rear elevation, the proposed rear Block C building would also not appear visually overbearing or result in any undue loss of privacy to the occupiers of No.1 Robin Hood Lane and No.19 Robin Hood Way. 51. In terms of noise and general disturbance, the replacement of the existing commercial garage with a residential development is likely to benefit the amenities of adjoining residents. A noise survey and assessment has been carried out and submitted with the application. The survey identifies that the existing noise climate is largely dominated by road traffic, particularly from Kingston Vale and the Kingston Bypass. The assessment, which only considers quantifiable ambient noise such as that eminating from external plant, concludes that the proposed development would have no adverse impact on residential amenity and would comply with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework and Council policy. 52. No objection has been raised by the Council's Environmental Health Section to the proposal on noise and disturbance grounds subject to a condition being attached to any permission granted restricting the rating level of sound emissions from any plant associated with the proposed use to at least 5dBA lower than the existing background noise level at any given time of operation (this would be determined 1 metre externally to any window at the nearest residential facade in accordance with BS4142:1997). The positioning of the landscaped communal space between Blocks A and C and the incorporation of a 2 metre high garden wall and planted screens on the boundaries of the application site would protect neighbouring properties (No.19 Robin Hood Way, No.5 Vale Parade and No.1 Robin Hood Lane) from undue noise and disturbance, from the use of the communal space and comings and goings from the use, occurring close to boundaries with No.19 Robin Hood Way, No.5 Vale Parade and No.1 Robin Hood Lane. 53. The proposed student residence will have 24 hour, on-site wardens and an entry system at all doors and gates, to keep out unwelcome intruders as indicated in the Framework Student Accommodation Management Plan submitted. The buildings and grounds would be permanently monitored internally and externally by CCTV cameras to ensure both illegal activity and anti-social behaviour are kept under control. In order to address the concerns raised by local residents in relation to potential anti-social behaviour and noise and disturbance from students, a condition could be attached to any permission requiring the approval of a detailed Student Management Plan. This should include the following: ● Details of how the student accommodation will operate. ● Measures that will be taken to reduce the incidences of anti- social behaviour.
A63
● Measures that will be taken to reprimand students who behave in an antisocial way. ● Arrangements for the management of traffic/parking at the beginning and end of term. ● Daily arrangements to control access and egress of pedestrians, cyclists and vehicular traffic or measures to generally regulate the use of vehicles. ● Details of CCTV monitoring arrangements within the site (including monitoring of site entrances). ● Details of wardening/security presence. ● Arrangements for the creation of a 24 hour contact telephone number so that residents can contact the halls of residence if they have any matters they wish to be brought to the university's attention Increased signage in the locality - requesting that users of the street do not disrupt the peace of the neighbourhood. ● Details of how students can apply for a parking space and what measures will be put in place to ensure that those students, who may own a car and do not have an allocated on-site car parking space, park in the multi-storey car park on the Kingston Hill campus or other appropriate University controlled site rather than on surrounding roads. 54. Subject to the above conditions being attached to any permission granted, the proposal would have no adverse impact on the amenities of neighbouring residential properties in Vale Parade, Kingston Vale, Robin Hood Way and Robin Hood Lane. Standard of Accommodation for Future Occupiers 55. The proposal has been designed to comply with Kingston University's 'Student Accommodation Provision' specifications. These specify that for medium scale student hall proposals (from 100 to 400 rooms) the proposed development should ideally consist of cluster flats of between four and eight bedrooms with some studio provision also possible. Each flat should have adequate communal space to allow its residents to socialise and eat together. The proposed development should comprise largely of study bedrooms with ensuite bathrooms, however some consideration could be given to budget models with some sharing of facilities. The proposed development should include amenity and communal space. 56. The Council does not, at present, have any adopted guidance relating to student accommodation. This is to be addressed in the emerging Residential Design SPD, Draft for Consultation December 2012 (due to be formally adopted in Spring 2013 as part of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy) which sets out general design principles and internal space, outdoor space, car and cycle parking standards for student housing. Given this document is currently in draft form and has not been formally adopted by the
A64
Council, limited weight can be attached to it. 57. The proposal would provide a mix of 59 studio and 60 cluster rooms. The proposed studio rooms within Blocks A, B and C would range in size from 14.41 to 24 sq. metres and would each have their own kitchen and ensuite bathroom areas. The cluster rooms within Block A would range in size from 11.97 to 13.61 sq. metres and would each have an ensuite bathroom and access to 2 kitchen/communal areas on each floor. The units would have a combination of windows and rooflights providing natural sources of light and outlook. The basement within Block B would provide a common room with lightwell providing outlook and a source of natural light, a WC, laundry and plant rooms and will be accessible by a lift. 58. The proposal would also provide separate car and cycle parking and refuse storage area for its residents. A landscaped communal space between Blocks A and C for student use is also provided. 59. From the internal floor plans provided, each of the proposed student units would be of a satisfactory size and would receive an adequate level of natural light and outlook. A BRE Daylight, Sunlight, Overshadowing Assessment has been provided with the application to demonstrate that the proposed units would receive a satisfactory level of light and that the intended shared communal amenity space/cycle parking area between the main and rear buildings would not be unduly overshadowed. It has also been demonstrated that there would be no direct overlooking or loss of privacy between Buildings A, B and C and that satisfactory separation would be provided from the amenity space/cycle parking area and car parking areas to ensure no loss of privacy or noise and disturbance to the future occupiers of the ground floor units from the use of these areas. In this respect, the proposal would be in accordance with Policy DM10 of the LDF Core Strategy.
Highways & Parking
60. Policies DM9 and DM10 of the LDF Core Strategy seek to ensure that new development has regard to local traffic conditions and does not contribute to congestion or compromise highway safety. 61. The application site has a Public Transport Accessibility Level of 1b (very poor) and is not well served by public transport. The existing properties on Kingston Vale, between Robin Hood Lane and Fusion Court currently have limited off-street parking. The on-street parking opportunities on Kingston Vale are limited where the waiting restrictions are 7.00am to 7.00pm throughout the week, with loading only permitted during the day between 10.00am and 4.00pm. As a consequence, Robin Hood Lane currently experiences on-street parking stress with associated safety and manoeuvring concerns. 62. Due to the presence of a number of private driveways, parking on the section of Robin Hood Lane between Kingston Vale and St John's Church is limited with on-street parking being heavily in demand from residents in Robin Hood Lane/Kingston Vale, parents using the clubs A65
at the church hall and commuters from the Putney area. The demand from these users has also recently extended along Robin Hood Lane as far as the crossroads with Grasmere Avenue. There are currently no Controlled Parking Zones in this area and as such there is no ability currently to control car ownership as part of this. 63. There are no specific parking standards with regard to student accommodation in the London Plan. The proposal would provide car parking for 12 vehicles in the form of 2 areas - a rear car parking area for 8 vehicles accessed from Kingston Vale and a car parking area to the front of the ancillary building for 4 vehicles (including 2 disabled spaces). This equates to a 10% provision for the total number of units proposed. Cycle parking for 60 bicycles would be provided between the main and rear buildings accessed from Kingston Vale and a servicing/delivery bay would be provided in front of the ancillary building accessed from Robin Hood Lane. 64. The Transport Statement accompanying the application notes that surveys undertaken by Kingston University in 2008 illustrate that 17% of students travelled by car, with 5% as car passengers. The Student Accommodation Travel Plan also states a target to reduce student travel by car to 12% by 2013. The proposed accommodation is within walking distance (10 - 15 minutes) of two University campuses, and is accessible to the University bus service that links all of the campuses. 65. No objection in principle has been raised by Transport for London or the Council's Neighbourhood Traffic Engineer to either the proposed vehicular access points onto Kingston Vale and Robin Hood Lane, which make use of the existing accesses into the site, or to the level of car and cycle parking provision proposed. The Neighbourhood Traffic Engineer considers that the applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated that a parking provision of 10% (1 space per 10 rooms) is appropriate for this location. 66. The servicing/delivery bay, cycle parking area and car parking spaces proposed are considered to be functional (being 2.4 metres in width and 4.8 metres in length with a 6 metre separation distance between the 2 parking rows in the main rear car parking area accessed from Kingston Vale) and positioned to allow vehicles and cycles to easily manoeuvre in and out of them. 67. The Neighbourhood Traffic Engineer has requested that conditions relating to the approval of a Car Park Management Plan, a Student Accommodation Management Plan (including how students can apply for a parking space), a travel plan (to help encourage students, staff and visitors to the application site to travel to and from it by non car modes), cycle parking, a working scheme, a sustainable urban drainage system and informatives relating to material deliveries, vehicular provisions and highway works being attached to any permission granted. The Travel Plan should reflect that of Kingston University and would include a package of measures for reducing the number of car trips, an action plan with timescales for the implementation of the proposed measures, details of an ongoing programme of monitoring and review and targets for reduction in car A66
use. The monitoring and targets set out within it would be secured as part of a Section 106 agreement. 68. Subject to the above conditions and Section 106 agreement securing the above sustainable transport/sustainable environment works, the proposal would not have any significant adverse impact on the local highway network or result in pressure on existing on street parking to the detriment of the amenity of the surrounding area. As such, the proposal would be in accordance with Policy 6.13 of the London Plan and Policies CS7, DM9 and DM10 of the LDF Core Strategy.
Trees
69. Policy DM10 of the LDF Core Strategy states that the Council will expect new development to ensure that trees that are important to the character of the area or covered by Tree Preservation Orders are not adversely affected. Where trees are to be lost through development the Council will normally require the planting of two specimens for each tree lost. 70. There are no trees that would be removed as part of the proposal. The proposal would retain the mature trees located close to the southern boundary of the site on the boundary with No.1 Robin Hood Lane. No objection has therefore been raised by the Council's Trees and Landscape Section to the proposal subject to a condition requiring full details of landscaping to the site and public realm areas around the site. Subject to such a condition, the proposal is considered to be in accordance with Policy DM10 of the LDF Core Strategy.
Legal Agreements
71. A S106 legal agreement would be required to secure the following contributions (totalling £87,250) towards health and social care facilities (£23,800) and sustainable travel/sustainable environment (£59,500) (this includes £3,500 for a Full Travel Plan) within the Borough in consultation with the Neighbourhood Traffic Engineer and in with accordance with the Council's adopted Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (Planning Obligations SPD), which forms part of its Local Development Framework (LDF). The agreement would also require Kingston University Students to have exclusive rights on the accommodation and a stipulation that any cars owned by students would need to be parked in the multi-storey car park on the Kingston Hill campus or other appropriate University controlled site rather than on surrounding roads. Subject to such an agreement being provided, the proposal would be in accordance with Policy IMP3 of the LDF Core Strategy. Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) 72. The proposal is liable for Mayoral CIL at a rate of £35 per sq. metre on the net increase in gross floorspace proposed.
A67
Sustainability
73. The proposed development would need to demonstrate compliance with the Mayor's Sustainability Strategy for reducing carbon emissions and the buildings energy demand through the use of sustainable design strategies. The development would normally be expected to achieve BREEAM 'Excellent' in accordance with the requirements of Policy 5.2 of the London Plan and Policy DM1 of the LDF Core Strategy unless it could be demonstrated that this were not feasible in which case a financial contribution towards climate change mitigation may be considered appropriate. 74. The Energy Statement submitted with the application states that the development will incorporate a gas Combined Heat and Power (CHP) engine and communal heating system and a range of efficiency measures including levels of insulation beyond Building Regulation requirements, the installation of high performance glazing, low energy lighting and energy efficient local extraction fans for the toilets and kitchen areas. The Sustainability Statement also provides confirmation that the development has been design to achieve BREEAM 'Excellent' in accordance with the requirements of Policy 5.2 of the London Plan and Policy DM1 of the LDF Core Strategy.
Other Material Considerations
75. The site is within 100 metres of a Greenspace Information for Greater London (GiGL) Habitat area (Richmond Park). Given the application site is an existing developed and hard surfaced area there is no reason to suggest that any ecological designations, habitats of nature conservation interest or any protected species will be significantly harmed by the proposals. As such, the proposal would be in accordance with Policy DM6 of the LDF Core Strategy. 76. The proposal would incorporate level access, external ramps, lift access, wider than normal doors to allow wheelchair use and accessible communal areas for people of limited mobility, wheelchair and able-bodied users. In order to ensure that the proposal is accessible to persons with disabilities as stated in the application, a condition requiring details of access and facilities for people with disabilities to be submitted and approved prior to the occupation of the development could be attached to any permission were the application to be approved. Subject to this condition being attached to any permission granted, the proposal would be in accordance with Policies 4.5, 7.2 and 7.6 of the London Plan and Policy DM10 of the LDF Core Strategy. 77. Concern has been raised by local residents that the proposed development could adversely impact on human health from existing land contamination. The Council's Environmental Health Section has raised no objection to the proposal on these grounds subject to conditions being attached to any permission granted requiring a scheme to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site and a detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition A68
suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and the natural and historical environment being agreed. 78. Concerns have also been raised that the proposal would devalue neighbouring properties and would be in breach of restrictive covenants that have been attached to the application site. Given these are non-planning related matters and covered by other legislation, limited weight can be given to these concerns.
Reason for Approval
79. The proposed development would provide a satisfactory standard of accommodation for future occupiers and would preserve the character of the Kingston Vale Conservation Area and would have no adverse impact on the amenities of surrounding occupiers or highway safety. Accordingly the proposal complies with Policies CS1, CS3, CS7, CS8, CS15, DM1, DM6, DM8, DM9, DM10, DM11, DM12, DM14 and IMP3 of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Local Development Framework Core Strategy, Adopted April 2012.
Recommendation :
Approve subject to the completion of an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), as specified in the above legal agreements section, and the following condition(s): 1 The development hereby permitted shall be commenced within 3 years from the date of this decision. Reason: In order to comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990. (As amended) 2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following documents and approved plans: 842.10.03.Pln.001.a1.B Site Plan, 842.10.03.Pln.021.a1 Basement Plan, 842.10.03.Pln.022.a1.D Ground Floor Plan, 842.10.03.Pln.023.a1.B First Floor Plan, 842.10.03.Pln.024.a1.B Second Floor Plan, 842.10.03.Pln.026.a1 Basement Plan, 842.10.03.Pln.030.a1.B Roof Plan, 842.10.03.Pln.040.a1.B Landscaping Section, 842.10.03.Pln.060.a1.B Elevations Kingston Vale, 842.10.03.Pln.061.a1.B Elevations Robin Hood Lane, 842.10.03.Pln.062.a1.B Rear Elevation, 842.10.03.Pln.063.a1.B Elevation to Vale Parade and Elevation to Garden Studio block, 842.10.03.Pln.064.a1.A Rear Elevation to Block B, 842.10.03.Pln.a1.160.a1.A Detailed Elevation and Arboricultural Report Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory appearance on the completion of the development and to safeguard the amenities of the surrounding residential occupiers, to safeguard highway safety and the free flow of traffic and to prevent unnecessary damage occurring to trees during building operations, thereby safeguarding the visual amenities of the site in accordance with Policy DM10 A69
(Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy, Adopted April 2012. 3 Full details of the materials, colour and texture of the external finish of the buildings including samples shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development commences and the development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved finishes. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance on completion of the development in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012. 4 All works on site shall take place in accordance with the following details which shall have previously been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of work: (a) Provision for loading/unloading materials. (b) Storage of plant, materials and operatives vehicles. (c) Temporary site access. (d) Signing system for works traffic. (e) Measures for the laying of dust, suppression of noise and abatement of other nuisance arising from development works. (f) Location of all ancillary site buildings. (g) Measures to protect any tree, shrubbery and other landscape features to be retained on the site during the course of development. (h) Means of enclosure of the site. (i) Wheel washing equipment. (j) The parking of vehicles of the site operatives and visitors (k) The erection and maintenance of security hoarding. (l) A scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works. Reason: In order to safeguard the amenities of the surrounding residential occupiers and to safeguard highway safety and the free flow of traffic in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012. 5 The car parking accommodation shown upon the approved drawings shall be provided with a hard bound dust free permeable surface, adequately drained before the development to which it relates is occupied and thereafter it shall be kept free from obstruction at all times for use by the occupier of the development and shall not thereafter be used for any purposes other than the parking of vehicles for the occupiers of the development and A70
visitors to it. Reason: To ensure the provision of adequate off-street parking accommodation and to avoid the congestion of surrounding roads by parked vehicles in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012. 6 The site and building works required to implement the development shall be only carried out between the hours of 08.00 and 18.00 Mondays to Fridays and between 08.00 and 13.00 on Saturdays and not at all on Bank Holidays and Sundays. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the adjoining residential occupiers in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012. 7 The levels of buildings, roads, parking areas and pathways within the site shall only be in accordance with details which shall have previously been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development is commenced. Reason: To ensure that the appearance and functioning of the development is satisfactory and to safeguard the amenities of adjoining occupiers in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012 and comply with Supplementary Planning Document ‘Access for All’ (July 2005). 8 Before the development hereby permitted is commenced, a scheme for protecting the proposed student units from traffic noise shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any works which form part of the scheme shall be completed before any of the dwellings is occupied. Reason: In order to safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of the dwellings in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012. 9 No fans, louvres, ducts or other external plant other than those shown on the drawings hereby approved shall be installed without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties and the visual amenities of the area in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012. 10 The rating level of the noise determined by the cumulative sound emissions of the plant hereby permitted shall be at least 5dBA lower than the existing background noise level at any given time of operation. The noise levels shall be determined 1m externally to any window at the nearest residential façade. Measurements and assessment shall be carried out in accordance with British A71
Standard 4142:1997 Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012. 11 No external lighting shall be installed without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In order that the lighting shall not cause nuisance to nearby occupiers or be a source of danger to road users in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012. 12 Unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority, development other than that required to be carried out as part of an approved scheme of remediation must not commence until conditions 1 to 4 below have been complied with. If unexpected contamination is found after development has begun, development must be halted on that part of the site affected by the unexpected contamination to the extent specified by the Local Planning Authority in writing until condition 4 has been complied with in relation to that contamination. 1. Site Characterisation An investigation and risk assessment, in addition to any assessment provided with the planning application, must be completed in accordance with a scheme to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site, whether or not it originates on the site. The contents of the scheme are subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons and a written report of the findings must be produced. The written report is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The report of the findings must include: (i) a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination; (ii) an assessment of the potential risks to: • human health, • property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops, livestock, pets, woodland and service lines and pipes, • adjoining land, • groundwaters and surface waters, • ecological systems, • archeological sites and ancient monuments; (iii) an appraisal of remedial options, and proposal of the preferred option(s). This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the A72
Environment Agency's 'Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11'. 2. Submission of Remediation Scheme A detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and the natural and historical environment must be prepared, and is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The scheme must include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of works and site management procedures. The scheme must ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the intended use of the land after remediation. 3. Implementation of Approved Remediation Scheme The approved remediation scheme must be carried out in accordance with its terms prior to the commencement of development other than that required to carry out remediation, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Local Planning Authority must be given two weeks written notification of commencement of the remediation scheme works. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme, a verification report (referred to in PPS23 as a validation report) that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be produced, and is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. 4. Reporting of Unexpected Contamination In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development that was not previously identified it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. An investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of condition 1, and where remediation is necessary a remediation scheme must be prepared in accordance with the requirements of condition 2, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a verification report must be prepared, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority in accordance with condition 3. 5. Long Term Monitoring and Maintenance A monitoring and maintenance scheme to include monitoring the long-term effectiveness of the proposed remediation over a period of years, and the provision of reports on the same must be prepared, both of which are subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. Following completion of the measures identified in that scheme and when the remediation objectives have been achieved, reports that demonstrate the effectiveness of the A73
monitoring and maintenance carried out must be produced, and submitted to the Local Planning Authority. This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency's 'Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11'. Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012. 13 A travel plan for the accommodation, which conforms to the Kingston University Travel Plan, shall be implemented upon the development being brought into first use, and in accordance with details to be submitted to, and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. The Travel Plan shall include a package of measures for reducing the number of single occupancy car trips by students, an action plan with timescales for the implementation of the proposed measures and details of an ongoing programme of monitoring and review and targets for reduction in car use. Monitoring and review shall include the submission of annual travel plan update report for the approval of the Local Planning Authority which demonstrates progress towards meeting targets. Reason: To ensure that sustainable transport methods are encouraged and implemented in accordance with Policies CS5 (Reducing the Need to Travel) and CS6 (Sustainable Travel) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012. 14 The proposed development hereby approved shall achieve BREEAM Excellent. The development shall not be occupied until a final Certificate certifying that BREEAM Excellent has been achieved has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of Sustainability and Energy Conservation in accordance with Policies 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 of the London's Plan (July 2011) and Policy DM1 (Sustainable Design and Construction Standards) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted, April 2012. 15 No development shall take place until details of the implementation, adoption, maintenance and management of a sustainable drainage system have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The system shall be implemented and thereafter managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details. Those details shall include a timetable for its implementation, and a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include the arrangements for adoption by any public body or statutory undertaker, or any other arrangements to secure the A74
effective operation of the sustainable drainage system throughout its lifetime. Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding in accordance with Policy CS1 (Climate Change Mitigation) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012. 16 Full details of the 60 secure covered cycle parking hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the occupation of the development. Such facilities shall thereafter be permanently maintained and kept available for cycle parking purposes only and free from obstruction at all times. Reason: To ensure the provision of satisfactory cycling storage facilities and in the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments (including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy, Adopted April 2012. 17 The refuse storage facilities and recycling facilities shown on Drawing 842.10.03.Pln.022.a.1.D hereby permitted shall be provided prior to the occupation of the development with such facilities being permanently retained at the site. Reason: To ensure the provision of refuse facilities to the satisfaction of the Council in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012. 18 No development shall commence until a landscaping scheme including where applicable the retention of the existing trees shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented within the first planting season following completion of the development and the tree planting and landscaping shall thereafter be maintained for five years to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs which die during this period shall be replaced in the first available planting season, and the area shown to be landscaped shall be permanently retained for that purpose only. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and also that the Local Planning Authority shall be satisfied as to the details of the development in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012. 19 No demolition, site clearance or building operations shall be commenced until tree protection to the standards set out in BS5837: 2012 "Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction" (figures 2 and 3) has been erected around the trees shown on the approved drawings as being retained on the site. The fencing is to be not less than 2 metres in height and shall enclose either:-
A75
(a) the area described by the limit set out in Table D.1 or (b) such an area as may have previously been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such tree protection shall be maintained during the course of development, and no storage, site structures, parking or any other operation shall be permitted within the area thereby protected. Within the protected area: (a) levels shall not be raised or lowered in relation to the existing ground level, (b) no roots shall be cut, trenches dug, or soil removed or drains and services laid, (c) no buildings, site huts, roads or other engineering operations shall be constructed or carried out, (d) no vehicles shall be driven over or parked within the area, (e) no materials or equipment shall be stored, (f) no storage, loading or use of any materials whose accidental spillage could cause damage to trees. and the destruction by burning of any materials shall not take place on the site or adjoining land unless the fires are at a minimum distance from the protected area of 6.00 metres. Reason: To prevent unnecessary damage occurring to the trees during building operations, thereby safeguarding the visual amenities of the site in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012. 20 Fences, walls or other means of enclosure shall be erected along the boundaries of the site prior to the occupation of the development in accordance with details which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall thereafter be permanently retained. Reason: In order to ensure the privacy of adjoining occupiers and visual amenity of the area is retained in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012. 21 A Car Park Management Plan demonstrating how the 12 car parking spaces hereby approved will be managed and detailing how occupants and staff of the development will be deterred from using Robin Hood Lane to park shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the development commences. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In order to safeguard the amenities of the surrounding residential occupiers and highway safety and the free flow of traffic in accordance with Policies 5.2, 5.3 and 6.13 of the London Plan (2011) and Policies DM3 (Designing for Climate Change), DM9 A76
(Managing Vehicle Use for New Development) and Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy, Adopted April 2012. 22 The building shall not be occupied until all works relating to the reconstruction and widening of the footway on Kingston Vale and Robin Hood Lane adjacent to the site have been carried out in accordance with details approved by the Local Planning Authority or by the Council as Highway Authority pursuant to Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980. Such details shall include the agreement of levels and construction details. All works are to be to the Council's adoptable highway standards and shall include any associated drainage works, lighting improvements, landscaping, street furniture, road markings, signage, traffic orders, and any necessary alterations to statutory undertakers equipment. Any widening to the public footways shall be retained permanently available for pedestrian circulation and the widened areas dedicated as highway pursuant to the Highways Act 1980. Reason: In the interests of amenity, the free flow of traffic on the highway and road safety in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments (including House Extensions) of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy, Adopted April 2012. 23 Before the development commences, a Student Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The Plan shall include the following: ● Details of how the student accommodation will operate. ● Measures that will be taken to reduce the incidences of anti- social behaviour. ● Measures that will be taken to reprimand students who behave in an antisocial way. ● Arrangements for the management of traffic/parking at the beginning and end of term. ● Daily arrangements to control access and egress of pedestrians, cyclists and vehicular traffic or measures to generally regulate the use of vehicles. ● Details of CCTV monitoring arrangements within the site (including monitoring of site entrances). ● Details of wardening/security presence. ● Arrangements for the creation of a 24 hour contact telephone number so that residents can contact the halls of residence if they have any matters they wish to be brought to the university's attention Increased signage in the locality - requesting that users of the street do not disrupt the peace of the neighbourhood. ● Details of how students can apply for a parking space and A77
what measures will be put in place to ensure that those students, who may own a car and do not have an allocated on-site car parking space, park in the multi-storey car park on the Kingston Hill campus or other appropriate University controlled site rather than on surrounding roads. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the adjoining residential occupiers in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012.
Informative(s)
1 You are advised that the Council's Neighbourhood Traffic Engineer has made the following comments in respect of the application: Material Deliveries The works will result in substantial movement of heavy vehicles on Kingston Vale. i) Deliveries to the site should where possible avoid waiting on the highway as this could result in a reduction to road safety; ii) Site access warning signs will be required in Kingston Vale. Vehicular provisions i) Should make full use of the site accesses to maximise the availability of off street parking; ii) Any parking that cannot be contained within the site must park considerately and safely, so as not to obstruct sightlines at junctions or site accesses. The applicant should be aware that any such parking will cause unnecessary concern and agitation within the local community; iii) I am aware that there are parking issues in the vicinity. As a result, no service parking should be allowed on Kingston Vale to maintain highway safety and amenity for local shops and residents; Disruption to Highway The proposals may lead to disruption to users of the highway network in the Borough. As a result the applicant should contact should contact the Boroughs Street Works Team (0208 547 5002. This must take place at least one month prior to works commencing, and is required under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, and the Traffic Management Act 2004, in order to satisfy the licensing requirements of the Highways Act 1980. This is to ensure the amenities of the surrounding residential occupiers and to safeguard highway safety and the free flow of traffic. 2 The Borough Environmental Health Officer advises that in order to comply with Condition 9, sound insulation should be provided to reach the following standard:- a) The glazing specification to the rooms in question should be such that an internal noise level with windows closed of 40dBA 18 hour L10. ("Good Standard" as set out in A78
Planning Circular 10/73) is obtained. b) Acoustic ventilation should be provided so that the room can be sufficiently ventilated WITHOUT the need to open windows on the noise sensitive facade. c) It is further recommended that where the window in question is south, east or west facing, blinds are provided so as to reduce thermal gain within the room. d) These requirements apply to all living rooms. Should you require further information please contact the Environmental Health. 3 The applicant's attention is drawn to the attached guidelines from the Borough Environmental Health Officer regarding possible environmental nuisance caused by the development. 4 You are advised that this planning permission has an accompanying legal agreement which requires the payment of financial contributions towards health and social care facilities and sustainable travel/sustainable environment prior to the occupation of the residential accommodation hereby permitted. 5 In dealing with the application the Council has implemented the requirement in the National Planning Policy Framework to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive way. We have made available detailed advice in the form or our statutory policies in the Core Strategy, Supplementary Planning Documents, Planning Briefs and other informal written guidance, as well as offering a full pre-application advice service, in order to ensure that the applicant has been given every opportunity to submit an application which is likely to be considered favourably. 6 Your attention is drawn to the need to comply with the relevant provisions of the Building Regulations, the Building Acts and other related legislation. These cover such works as - the demolition of existing buildings, the erection of a new building or structure, the extension or alteration to a building, change of use of buildings, installation of services, underpinning works, and fire safety/means of escape works. Notice of intention to demolish existing buildings must be given to the Council’s Building Control Service at least 6 weeks before work starts. A completed application form together with detailed plans must be submitted for approval before any building work is commenced. 7 The Party Wall Act 1996 requires a building owner to notify, and obtain formal agreement from, any adjoining owner, where the building owner proposes to: - carry out work to an existing party wall; - build on the boundary with a neighbouring property; - in some circumstances, carry out groundwork's within 6 metres of an adjoining building. Notification and agreements under this Act are the responsibility of the building owner and are quite separate from Building Regulations, or Planning Controls. The Building Control Service
A79
will assume that an applicant has obtained any necessary agreements with the adjoining owner, and nothing said or implied by the Council should be taken as removing the necessity for the building owner to comply fully with the Party Wall Act. Further information and advice is to be found in "The Party Walls etc. Act 1996 - Explanatory Booklet". 8 The development approved by this planning permission will be liable to pay the Mayor of London's Community Infrastructure Levy (MCIL). We have calculated the amount of MCIL liability to be £ 95,287.50. Payment will be due once the owner/developer serves a development Commencement Notice on the Council, and a payment Demand Notice has been received by the owner. Failure to submit a Commencement Notice will incur a surcharge of 20% of the chargeable amount or £2,500, whichever is the lower amount. When you have discharged all pre-commencement conditions the Council will issue a Liability Notice to the owner setting out the MCIL calculation. Accompanying the Liability Notice will be a blank Commencement Notice and if necessary a blank Assumption of Liability form, both of which need to be completed and returned to the Council prior to development commencing. A failure to do so will incur a surcharge. Should you have any questions in respect of the contents of this letter or the MCIL more generally, please contact the Council's Contact Centre by email [email protected] or phone 0208 547 5002.
A80
Development Control Committee
Date of Meeting: 12/02/2013
A Register No : 12/16601/HOU
Address : 159 GRAND AVENUE, SURBITON, SURREY, KT5 9HZ
(c) Crown Copyright. All right reserved. Royal Borough of Kingston 2007. Licence number 100019285. [Please note that this plan is intended to assist in locating the development it is not the site plan of the proposed development which may have different boundaries. Please refer to the application documents for the proposed site boundaries.]
A81
Ward : Alexandra Description of Proposal : Erection of Single Storey rear Extension Plan Type : Householder Expiry Date : 03/01/2013
Applicant's Plan Nos :
Grand Avenue 159-ExProBlockPlan Received 24/10/2012 Grand Avenue 159-Location Plan Received 24/10/2012 GrandAvenue_159and161_Planning_Set_002B Received 24/10/2012 GrandAvenue_159and161_Planning_Set_003B Received 24/10/2012 GrandAvenue_159and161_Planning_Set_004B Received 24/10/2012 GrandAvenue_159and161_Planning_Set_005B Received 24/10/2012 GrandAvenue_159and161_Planning_Set_006B Received 24/10/2012 GrandAvenue_159and161_Planning_Set_007B Received 24/10/2012
BASIC INFORMATION
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012
Development Plan : London Plan July 2011 LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012
Policies
LDF CORE STRATEGY CORE POLICIES CS 08 Character, Heritage and Design
LDF CORE STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT DM10 Design Requirements for New Developments DM12 Development in Conservation Areas and Af
Consultations
1. 10 neighbours have been consulted. No responses have been received.
Site and Surroundings
2. The proposed site is located on the west side of Grand Avenue and consists of a two storey semi detached property. The surrounding area is predominately residential and comprises two storey semi detached properties. The proposed site is not located in a conservation area but it is within an Local Area of Special Character. A82
Proposal
3. The proposal seeks to demolish the existing conservatory and erect a single storey rear extension. The application has been submitted in conjunction with another application (12/16603/HOU) for a similar extension for the neighbouring property. The proposal seeks to construct the rear extension at the same time as the neighbouring No.161 Grand for which planning permission has already been granted.
Assessment
The main considerations material to the determination of this application are:
• Principle of Proposed Development • Impact on Character of Area • Impact on Neighbour’s Residential Amenity • Highways and Parking • Trees • Legal Agreements • Sustainability • Other Material Considerations
Principle of Proposed Development
4. The principle for the proposed single storey rear extension is acceptable subject to compliance with the relevant policies and guidance. Impact on Character of Area
5. The single storey rear extension will project 4.8 metres in depth along the flank elevation and 3.4 metres in depth along the adjoining neighbouring property. The proposal will not project further in depth than the existing rear conservatory. The overall width is proposed to be 8.5 metres and will be stepped in by 1 metre. The height is proposed to be 2.9 metres to the eaves and 4 metres to the ridge and will consist of a part flat and part pitched roof. 6. It is considered that as the proposal is located at the rear of the property, it will not be visible from the street scene and will therefore not have a significant impact on the character and appearance of the Local Area of Special Character. It is considered that the design and the materials used will compliment the existing dwelling and will therefore not have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling.
Impact on Neighbours’ Residential Amenity
7. In terms of residential amenity, it is considered that the proposed single storey rear extension will not have a significant impact on the amenities of the neighbouring properties. As the proposal is in conjunction with a similar proposal at the neighbouring No.161 Grand Avenue, it is A83
considered that both extensions will be the same depth and height. It is therefore considered that the proposal will not have an adverse impact on the amenities of No.161 in terms of loss of light, outlook and privacy. The neighbouring No.157 Grand Avenue does not have an existing rear extension, and although the proposed rear extension will project 4.8 metres it is considered that as the rear extension is set in from the boundary by 1.5 metres it will not have a significant impact on the amenities of the neighbouring property in terms of loss of light and outlook. Other Material Considerations
8. The area is located in a flood zone and 50 Degrees North have made recommendations that the new finished floor levels will be set 150mm above the existing ground level.
Reason for Approval
9. The proposed single storey rear extension will not have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area and the Local Area of Special Character. It is considered that the proposal will be constructed of materials similar to the existing dwelling and will therefore not have a significant impact on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling. In terms of residential amenity, it is considered that the proposed single storey rear extension will not have a significant impact on the amenities of the neighbouring properties in terms of loss of light, outlook or privacy. The proposal is therefore considered as acceptable and in accordance with Policy DM10, DM12 and CS8 of the Core Strategy (Adopted April 2012) and Supplementary Planning Guidance: Residential Extensions (Adopted January 1982).
Recommendation :
Approve subject to the following conditions: 1 The development hereby permitted shall be commenced within 3 years from the date of this decision. Reason: In order to comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990. (As amended) 2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 1323 002B, 1323 005B, 1323 006B, 1323 003B, 1323 004B, 1323 007B Reason: For avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. 3 The materials and finishes of the external walls and roof of the development hereby permitted shall match in colour and texture those of the existing building, or such other materials as shall have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance on completion of the development in accordance with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for A84
New Developments including House Extensions) of the LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012.
Informative(s)
1 The Party Wall Act 1996 requires a building owner to notify, and obtain formal agreement from, any adjoining owner, where the building owner proposes to: carry out work to an existing party wall; build on the boundary with a neighbouring property; in some circumstances, carry out groundwork’s within 6 metres of an adjoining building. Notification and agreements under this Act are the responsibility of the building owner and are quite separate from Building Regulations, or Planning Controls. The Building Control Service will assume that an applicant has obtained any necessary agreements with the adjoining owner, and nothing said or implied by the Council should be taken as removing the necessity for the building owner to comply fully with the Party Wall Act. Further information and advice is to be found in “The Party Walls etc. Act 1996 - Explanatory Booklet”. 2 Your attention is drawn to the need to comply with the relevant provisions of the Building Regulations, the Building Acts and other related legislation. These cover such works as - the demolition of existing buildings, the erection of a new building or structure, the extension or alteration to a building, change of use of buildings, installation of services, underpinning works, and fire safety/means of escape works. Notice of intention to demolish existing buildings must be given to the Council’s Building Control Service at least 6 weeks before work starts. A completed application form together with detailed plans must be submitted for approval before any building work is commenced. 3 In dealing with the application the Council has implemented the requirement in the National Planning Policy Framework to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive way. We have made available detailed advice in the form or our statutory policies in the Core Strategy, Supplementary Planning Documents, Planning Briefs and other informal written guidance, as well as offering a full pre-application advice service, in order to ensure that the applicant has been given every opportunity to submit an application which is likely to be considered favourably.
A85
B1
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE 12 FEBRUARY 2013 DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE MONITORING REPORT BY THE HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT
SUMMARY This report is to update Members on performance of the Development Management Service for the previous quarter October to December 2012.
RECOMMENDATION It is RECOMMENDED that the contents of this report are noted.
REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION For information and monitoring purposes.
HIGHLIGHT REPORT
The key outcomes from this report is as follows:
• Average validation time for applications is under 5 days
• Performance has decreased for all categories of applications with Majors at 100%.
• Increase in the amount of applications which have been appealed and a decrease in the number that have been dismissed from 75% to 56%
• An increase in the number of new enforcement cases opened from 70 to 85.
• The majority of enforcement cases are resolved by mediation rather than formal enforcement action.
B2
BACKGROUND
1 This report outlines performance for the Development Management Service for the period and draws comparisons with the previous.
2 The Development Management Service was set up in 2009 and includes Enforcement, Trees and Landscape as well as planning functions within Development Control.
3 Previously performance management for Development Control has been focused on the speed of processing planning applications and measured against the National Indicator 157 which seeks to process “Minor” and “Other” applications within 8 weeks and “Major” applications within 13 weeks.
4 The Government have consulted on changes to measuring an authorities performance taking into account both speed and quality with a particular focus on Major applications. The results of the consultation have not been published however it is likely that whatever changes are imposed are likely to come into force in April 2013. A new section of the report has therefore been included to show how the Council performs against the proposed measures.
REPORT STRUCTURE
5 This report comprises the following sections : • Speed of Validation – The time taken to validate new applications • Development Control – the number of decisions, the speed of decisions (NI157). • Planning Appeals – determination of appeals • New Performance Measures – Focus on Major application speed and quality • Planning Enforcement – cases actioned and reasons for closure • Appendix 1 – Schedule of Appeals Determined in the quarter.
SPEED OF VALIDATION
6 Central to the delivery of applications within 8 and 13 weeks is the ability to validate applications as swiftly as possible so that they can be handed to the case officer. Following the reorganisation of the planning administration and the formation of a Business Support team there were significant delays in the processing of applications. The validation process has been reviewed and measures put in place to ensure that all applications are validated within 5 days of receipt. The validation process is therefore considered a key performance indicator and also important to the customers for Development Management.
Table 1: Speed of Validation
Application Average time taken to validate (days) type Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 11/12 11/12 11/12 11/12 12/13 12/13 12/13 Major 5.8 6.3 4 8.6 7.4 5.0 4.3 Minor 5.6 6.1 5.3 6.9 8.5 4.5 4.6 B3
Other 5.7 5.5 4.7 6.4 8.3 5.1 4.7 Total 5.7 5.6 4.7 6.1 7.7 4.5 4.1
7 Performance continues to improve. This now means that validation for all categories is now within the 5 day target to ensure that applications reach the planning officer as soon as possible.
8 Planning and Support Services continue to work together to improve performance it is important that performance is not affected by the implementation of the new Business Support Team. The Group Manager is working closely with the existing support team and Agilisis to ensure that the transition is a streamline as possible.
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL MONITORING
9 This section analyses Development Control planning performance at both borough and neighbourhood levels against National Indicator 157, which requires 60% “Major” applications to be processed in 13 weeks, 65% of “Minor” applications in 8 weeks and 80% of “Other” applications in 8 weeks.
Table 2: Speed of Determination of Planning Applications- Borough Wide
Major Minor Other Quarter (National Target 60% in (National Target 65% in (National Target 80% in 8 End 13 wks) 8 wks) wks) Within Within Within Total Total Total 13 % 8 % 8 % Decisions Decisions Decisions weeks weeks weeks
Q1 11/12 1 2 50 45 66 68 300 348 86
Q2 11/12 1 3 33 56 96 58 391 450 86
Q3 11/12 0 2 0 57 73 78 264 285 93
Q4 11/12 2 9 27 48 92 52 250 322 78
Q1 12/13 3 3 100 34 49 69 265 321 83
Q2 12/13 0 2 0 51 93 46 264 380 69
Q3 12/13 2 6 33 62 106 58 300 355 85
10 Table 2 shows an increase in performance across all three categories. Performance on Major applications are still low however Minor performance is close to the target of 65% and Other performance is above the target which are all below the NI157 target.
11 This improvement in performance is due to a concerted effort to clear the backlog of applications and all positions in planning being filled by permanent members of staff.
B4
Table 3: Planning Application Speed of Determinations by Neighbourhood
Kingston Town Maldens & South of the Surbiton Figures for Coombe Borough period July - Total No. % within Total % within Total % within Total No. % within Sept 2012 Dec target No. Dec target No. Dec target Dec target
Major 60% in 13 wks 1 0% 4 50% N/A N/A 1 100% Minor 65% in 8 wks 40 50% 29 62% 14 50% 23 74% Other 80% in 8 wks 109 90% 123 79% 40 80% 83 88%
12 Table 3 above shows: • that Surbiton had a 100% performance rate on ‘Major’ applications which were determined in 13 weeks. • that performance on ‘Minor’ applications were below the target in all Neighbourhoods but apart from Surbiton. • that performance on ‘Other’ applications are above the target in all Neighbourhoods apart from Malden and Coombe.
Table 4: Speed of Determination Delegated and Committee
Delegated Committee
Figures for % within No % over No over % No % over No over period July - target within target target within within target target Sept 2012 target target target Major 60% in 13 wks 100% 2 0% 0 0% 0 100% 4 Minor 65% in 8 wks 65% 56 35% 31 30% 6 70% 14 Other 80% in 8 wks 88% 298 12% 42 13% 2 87% 13
13 Table 4 shows that there are still significant delays in determining all applications within the 8 and 13 week timescale when they are reported to committee.
PLANNING APPEALS
B5
14 This section assess the Council’s performance in determining planning appeals which could become more important if this becomes a measure of a Council’s performance.
15 Details of appeals considered over the last quarter are listed in Appendix 1, analysis indicates: • all appeals were dealt by written submission • 52% of appeals were for householder applications • No awards for costs were made against the Council
16 Table 5 below summarises the total number of appeal decisions made, the proportions allowed and dismissed.
Table 5: Determination of Appeals
Annual/ quarter ending Total Appeals No Allowed % Dismissed %
Dec 2010 32 40% 60%
Mar 2011 27 42% 58%
June 2011 20 50% 50%
Sep 2011 29 24% 76%
Dec 2011 25 60% 40%
March 2012 20 35%* 60%
June 2012 20 40% 60%
Sep 2012 12 25% 75%
Dec 2012 27 44% 56%
*There was one split decision in this quarter which is why the total does not add up to 100%.
17 Table 5 shows a consistent low level of appeals to those received in December 2010. More appeals were dismissed that allowed however the number is below 60%. Over the coming year DM will be investigating ways in which appeal performance and trends can be measured along with any areas where we consistently loose appeals.
18 A large numbers of appeals are also householder and therefore the adoption of the long awaited SPD on Residential Design will help in the defence of appeal especially in relation to Policy DM10.
Table 6: Determination of Appeals Delegated and Committee
Quarter Allowed Dismissed Ending Delegated Committee Delegated Committee No % No % No % No %
June 2011 8 53% 2 40% 8 53% 3 60% B6
Sept 2011 4 18% 3 50% 19 86% 3 60%
Dec 2011 6 43% 8 73% 8 57% 3 27%
March 2012 6 46% 1 20% 7 54% 4 80%
June 2012 5 21% 3 100% 12 71% 0 0%
Sept 2012 1 12.5% 2 50% 7 87.5% 2 50%
Dec 2012 8 40% 4 57% 12 60% 3 43%
19 Table 6 shows that the number of appeals dismissed is higher for delegated than committee.
20 When comparing neighbourhoods in Table 7 only Kingston Town and Malden and Coombe had a higher number of appeals that were allowed than dismissed.
Table 7: Determination of Appeals by Neighbourhood
Kingston Town Malden and Coombe South of the Borough Surbiton Quarter Ending Allowed Dismissed Allowed Dismissed Allowed Dismissed Allowed Dismissed
Dec 5 4 3 4 5 0 1 3 2011
March 1 5 6 3 0 2 0 2 2012
June 4 3 3 8 0 2 1 1 2012
Sep 2012 N/A N/A 0 6 0 1 3 2
Dec 2012 4 3 7 5 0 2 3 3
NEW PERFORMANCE MEASURES
21 Members may be aware of the Coalition’s recent Growth Bill which sets out plans for new targets to measure the speed and quality of decision making. A consultation paper was brought before Members in December on these measures which include the retention of the NI157 target, the introduction of a planning guarantee along with measuring success rates at appeals. There is also a focus on ‘Major’ applications rather than all applicants which again is linked to the Growth Bill and their concern that the planning system preventing the approval of projects which in terms is affecting growth in the economy.
Speed
22 The proposed target is for authorities to determine more than 30% of all Major applications within 13 weeks. For financial years 2011/2012 and 2012/2013 the Council has determined 37% of Major Applications with 13 weeks. This figure is not significantly above the target and B7
therefore measures are currently being put in place to streamline the S106 process which is one of the main reasons why Major applications are not determined in time
Quality
23 The proposed target is for no more that 20% of all decisions on Major applications to be overturned at appeal. For financial years 2011/2012 and 2012/2013 the Council has determined 30 Major applications, however only 3 of these applications which were refused have been appealed. Of the 3 applications which were the subject of an appeal 2 were allowed and one dismissed. The Council’s performance is therefore 6% which is well below the target.
24 Whilst this performance is very good it has to be tempered by the fact that of 30 ‘Major’ applications determined a third (10 applications) were refused but only 3 of these resulted in a appeal.
The Planning Guarantee
25 The Planning Guarantee is being introduced that no planning application should take more than a year to determine including any appeal. Local Authorities target is therefore that 100% of all application should be determined within 26 weeks. Table 8 below therefore sets out the Council’s performance on the determination of all applications in 26 weeks in total and by Neighbourhood.
Table 8: Speed of Determination within 26 weeks
Figures for Borough Kingston Malden and South of the Surbiton period July - Wide Town Coombe Borough Sept 2012
Majors 71% 67% 67% 100% 50%
Minors 91% 94% 88% 91% 92%
Others 99% 99% 98% 98% 100%
26 Table 8 demonstrates that the Council is close to determining Other applications within 26 weeks however performance especially in relation to Major and Minor applications needs to be improved so that we are 98% and above for all categories.
ENFORCEMENT
27 The number of new enforcement cases opened this quarter up fractionally up from 87 in the last quarter. The number of cases warranting formal enforcement action remains low, as is traditionally the case.
B8
Table 9: Cases Opened by category of complaint
Main Complaint
Month Opened PP EN Trees Grand Total Grand Untidy Sites Untidy Building Building Work Change of Use of Change Advertisements Other Operations Other Non Compliance - Compliance Non - Compliance Non October 17 2 1 12 1 2 1 36 November 1 16 1 7 3 3 31 December 1 9 4 11 1 26 Grand Total 2 42 7 1 30 5 2 4 93
Table 10: Cases Closed and Investigation Conclusion
Calendar Year Closed 2012
Number of Cases Closed by Conclusion
October December November
Investigation Conclusion Total Grand Action Not Expedient 2 2 4 Breach of Condition Notice 1 1 Case Closed - No Details Available 1 1 Immune From Enforcement 6 2 1 9 Incorporated in New Case 1 1 Negotiation 9 1 1 11 No Enforcement Breach 18 8 5 31 Other 1 1 Permitted Development 9 3 1 13 Retrospective Permission/Consent Granted 11 2 3 16 S.215 Notice 1 1 Grand Total 57 18 14 89
28 The number of cases closed this quarter is down from 113 last quarter though mild fluctuations are normal. Table 10 shows that the majority of cases closed in the quarter were found not to be planning breaches and that of those which were planning breaches, the vast majority were resolved by mediation or by a planning application being received. Only in two cases was an enforcement notice required. B9
29 Looking back at all cases closed in 2012 it is clear that the traditional pattern of between a third and a half of all closed enforcement cases being closed on the basis that there is no breach or that the works are Permitted Development remains.
30 Scope to negotiate a resolution and to wait for retrospective planning applications remains an important tool, accounting for over a quarter of all closed cases. This is demonstrated in the following table which shows the reason for closure on all cases closed in 2012:
Figure 1: Cases Closed in 2012 by Reason
B10
Reason Number Action Not Expedient 33 Case Closed - No Details Available 26 Notice Served and Complied With 3 Immune From Enforcement 52 Incorporated in New Case 7 Negotiation 59 No Enforcement Breach 184 Non Planning Matter 8 Permitted Development 49 Retrospective Permission/Consent Granted 71
Note - This table does not purport to show the total number of notices served in 2012 – only the cases closed in the period following service of a notice the same year.
Figure 2: Number of days taken to close a case opened in 2012
B11
Cases opened in 2012- Number of days cases open for (including non working days): Days 0-5 6-20 21-50 51-100 101-200 200-300 TOTAL Cases 67 38 29 30 21 5 190
Figure 2 shows the length of time cases are staying open for. The chart shown only covers cases opened and closed in 2012 rather than all cases closed in 2012. The time periods are perhaps slanted a little against officers in that they are counted in total days rather than working days. The table nevertheless suggests that the majority of cases are closed in a very reasonable period.
Summary
The overall level of performance has far exceeded the upper target set for the team and the individuals within it. This has resulted in a significant reduction in older cases and in most current and recent cases being brought to a conclusion in good time. The above has been achieved whilst covering a staff vacancy for the period from August onwards and with a reduction of work allocated to the departing staff member leading up to August, suggesting that 2013 should be another productive year barring unforeseen circumstances.
Background data sets to inform this paper – held by Nicola Smith, author of the report, Tel. 020 8547 5414 e-mail [email protected].
Appeals Decided between 01/10/2012 and 31/12/2012 for: Maldens and Coombe
Ref’ No Address Description Appeal Type Statu Decision Type DoE DoE Received s Decided
11/14959/ 121 Manor Variation of Condition 5 Written Reps DEL Appeal Refusal 18/10/2012 18/10/2012 FUL Drive North, (opening hours) of Dismissed New Malden, planning permission KT3 5PD 06/14502 to allow extended opening hours until 1.30am Monday - Sunday 11/14962/ 23 Henley Change of Use from Written Reps DEL Appeal Refusal 14/11/2012 14/11/2012 FUL Drive, Kingston Residential (C3) to Bed & Dismissed Upon Thames, Breakfast (C1) KT2 7EB 12/14035/ Three Gables, Demolition of existing Written Reps DEL Appeal Refusal 13/11/2012 13/11/2012 FUL Coombe Wood dwelling to facilitate the Allowed Road, Kingston erection of 2 x detached Upon Thames, 2-storey houses (1 x 5 KT2 7JY bedroom to include basement and roof accommodation and 1 x 6-bedroom with accommodation in the roof) 12/14049/ 6 St Johns Enlargement of rear Written Reps DEL Appeal Refusal 03/10/2012 03/10/2012 HOU Terrace, dormer Allowed Kingston Vale, London, SW15 3PR 12/14069/ 41 Matlock Retention of dormer roof Written Reps COM Appeal Refusal 16/10/2012 16/10/2012 HOU Way, New Extension to northern M Allowed Malden, KT3 (side) elevation, raising of 3AT side and rear roof ridge levels to match front elevation and installation
Report 279833 Appeals Decided between 01/10/2012 and 31/12/2012 for: Maldens and Coombe
Ref’ No Address Description Appeal Type Statu Decision Type DoE DoE Received s Decided
of an additional window to existing part of the southern side wall 12/14089/ 143-145 High Conversion of B1 Unit at Written Reps DEL Appeal Non- 31/10/2012 31/10/2012 FUL Street, New ground floor to 1 x 2 Dismissed determin Malden, KT3 bedroom flat including ation 4BH alterations to doors and windows and formation of rear ramp 12/14201/ 44 Knightwood Erection of part single Written Reps COM Appeal Refusal 16/10/2012 16/10/2012 HOU Crescent, New storey/part two storey M Dismissed Malden, KT3 and part first floor 5JS side/rear extension 12/14297/ 21 Ullswater Erection of Two Storey Written Reps DEL Appeal Refusal 22/10/2012 22/10/2012 HOU Crescent, Side Extension Allowed London , SW15 (incorporating an open 3RG sided parking space at ground floor) and Installation of Rear Roof Dormer and Rooflights to Provide Additional Room in Roof Space 12/14309/ 6 Chelsea Fell one Oak Tree T2 Written Reps DEL Appeal Refusal 10/10/2012 10/10/2012 TPO Close, (RBK.05.86 T.6) Dismissed Worcester Park, KT4 7SF REFUSE - CONSENT FOR LESSER WORKS 12/14380/ 1 Coombe Hill Erection of Two Storey Written Reps COM Appeal Refusal 20/11/2012 20/11/2012 HOU Glade, Kingston Front Extension, Single M Dismissed Upon Thames, Storey Rear Extension, KT2 7EF First Floor Side Extension, Replacement
Report 279833 Appeals Decided between 01/10/2012 and 31/12/2012 for: Maldens and Coombe
Ref’ No Address Description Appeal Type Statu Decision Type DoE DoE Received s Decided
Front and Rear Dormers, Second Floor Front Balcony and Garage Conversion 12/14406/ 20 Reynolds Erection of single storey Written Reps DEL Appeal Refusal 06/11/2012 06/11/2012 HOU Road, New rear extension, first floor Dismissed Malden, KT3 side extension and 5NG inserting dormer windows to the rear roof slope of the side extension. 12780 29 Acacia Erection of out building in Written Reps Appeal Enforcem 18/10/2012 18/10/2012 Grove New rear garden Allowed ent Malden KT3 Notice 3BJ
Report 279833 Appeals Decided between 01/10/2012 and 31/12/2012 for: South of the Borough
Ref’ No Address Description Appeal Type Statu Decision Type DoE DoE Received s Decided
12/10047/ 67a Formation of vehicular Written Reps DEL Appeal Refusal 16/11/2012 16/11/2012 HOU Leatherhead crossover (driveway over Dismissed Road, pavement) Chessington, KT9 2HP 12/10053/ 82 Ladywood Erection of first floor Written Reps DEL Appeal Refusal 01/10/2012 01/10/2012 HOU Road, Surbiton, rear/side elevation Dismissed KT6 7PD
Report 279833 Appeals Decided between 01/10/2012 and 31/12/2012 for: Kingston Town
Ref’ No Address Description Appeal Type Statu Decision Type DoE DoE Received s Decided
11/12198/ Land Adjacent Erection of 1 x 96-Sheet Written Reps DEL Appeal Refusal 06/10/2012 06/10/2012 ADV 71 RICHMOND Internally Illuminated Dismissed ROAD, Advertising Display Unit KINGSTON UPON THAMES, KT2 5BP 12/12066/ The Welsh Hall, Demolition of existing Written Reps COM Appeal Refusal 19/10/2012 19/10/2012 FUL Elm Road, buidling and erection of 1 M Allowed Kingston Upon x pair of semi detached 4 Thames, KT2 bedroom two storey 6HP houses with rooms in roof and the construction of a pedestrian crossing on Elm Road 12/12100/ 136 Kings Formation of vehicular Written Reps DEL Appeal Refusal 01/10/2012 01/10/2012 HOU Road, Kingston crossover (driveway Dismissed Upon Thames, across the pavement) to KT2 5HU provide parking space in front garden. 12/12162/ 110 Durlston Alterations and extension Written Reps DEL Appeal Refusal 11/12/2012 11/12/2012 FUL Road, Kingston to existing single storey Dismissed Upon Thames, garage building at rear of KT2 5RU garden (fronting St Albans Road) to create a two storey, two bedroom dwelling. 12/12248/ 17 Barnfield Erection of two storey Written Reps DEL Appeal Refusal 22/10/2012 22/10/2012 HOU Gardens, side extension, single Allowed Kingston Upon storey rear extension and Thames, KT2 hip to gable roof 5RH extension and rear
Report 279833 Appeals Decided between 01/10/2012 and 31/12/2012 for: Kingston Town
Ref’ No Address Description Appeal Type Statu Decision Type DoE DoE Received s Decided
dormer. 12/12330/ 118 Lower Ham Alterations, ground and Written Reps DEL Appeal Refusal 16/10/2012 16/10/2012 HOU Road, Kingston first floor extensions to Allowed Upon Thames, existing dwelling and KT2 5BD existing rear extension to create a two storey 4- bedroom dwelling 12/12351/ 5 Tudor Road, Erection of a single Written Reps DEL Appeal Refusal 04/10/2012 04/10/2012 HOU Kingston Upon storey side and rear Withdrawn Thames, KT2 extension. 6AS 12/12473/ 79 Clifton Road, Alterations to roof Written Reps DEL Appeal Refusal 21/12/2012 21/12/2012 HOU Kingston Upon including raising of ridge Allowed Thames, KT2 height and erection of 6PJ rear/side dormer extension to facilitate loft conversion.
Report 279833
Appeals Decided between 01/10/2012 and 31/12/2012 for: Surbiton
Ref’ No Address Description Appeal Type Statu Decision Type DoE DoE Received s Decided
11/16384/ Garages, South Demolition of existing Written Reps COM Appeal Refusal 06/12/2012 06/12/2012 FUL Terrace, garages and erection of a M Dismissed Surbiton four storey block to create 16 x 2 bedroom flats, with car and cycle parking, refuse and recycling facilities and landscaping 11/16496/ Telephone Pole Prior Approval for the Written Reps DEL Appeal Refusal 16/10/2012 16/10/2012 TEL On Triangle , installation of 11.8m high Allowed Raeburn telecommunications Avenue, Opp mast, equipment cabinet 104 Alexandra and electrical mains pillar Drive, Surbiton, KT5 9AG 12/16004/ Former 311 Erection of two storey Written Reps DEL Appeal Non- 16/11/2012 16/11/2012 FUL Ewell Road, side and part single/part Dismissed determin Surbiton, KT6 two-storey rear ation 7BX extensions, alterations to roof of building including front and side dormer roof extensions to provide 5 x 1 bedroom and 2 x 2 bedroom flats with associated parking, cycle and bin storage 12/16043/ Units 2 And 3 Conversion of ground Written Reps DEL Appeal Refusal 14/11/2012 14/11/2012 FUL Chancery Court, floor offices to create 4 x Allowed
Report 279833
Appeals Decided between 01/10/2012 and 31/12/2012 for: Surbiton
Ref’ No Address Description Appeal Type Statu Decision Type DoE DoE Received s Decided
4-20 Tolworth studio flats with Close, Surbiton, associated car parking KT6 7EW spaces and cycle parking. 12/16093/ 15 Erection roof extension to Written Reps DEL Appeal Refusal 03/10/2012 03/10/2012 HOU Southborough provide half hipped roof Dismissed Road, Surbiton, and erection of rear KT6 6JN dormer extension to facilitate loft conversion 12/16166/ Garages, South Demolition of existing Written Reps COM Appeal Refusal 06/12/2012 06/12/2012 FUL Terrace, garages and erection of a M Allowed Surbiton four storey block to create 16 self contained dwellings (12 x 2- bedroom and 4 x 1- bedroom flats) with car and cycle parking, refuse and recycling facilities and landscaping
Report 279833