Decision details

19/0267/FUL 16-18 Richmond Road and 2 Canbury Park Road, Kingston Upon Thames KT2 5EB

Decision status: Recommendations Approved

Is Key decision?: No

Is subject to call in?: No

Decisions:

Description:

Demolition of the existing buildings and the erection of a part 9, 8 & 5 storey mixed use development fronting Richmond Road providing an A1/A3 use on the ground floor; 15 residential units on the ground and upper floors; erection of a 2-storey replacement building fronting Canbury Park Road to provide ancillary residential facilities at basement, ground and first floors; and provision of associated landscaping; cycle and refuse storage and associated works.

 

Public Speaking:

 

Objector

Applicant

Warren Samuels

 

Mark Thompson

Jenny Fitzgerald

 

 

A number of Members raised concern with the application on aspects such as the scale and massing of the proposal and its impact on the surrounding area.

 

A motion to grant the application, subject to the conditions and informatives as set out in the agenda report and those set out in the updated late material fell.

 

Voting:

 

For:                 Councillors Kim Bailey and Simon Edwards. (2)

 

Against:         Councillors Stephanie Archer, Roy Arora, Mark Beynon, David Cunningham, Lorraine Dunstone, Lesley Heap, Dave Ryder-Mills, Malcolm Self (Chair). (8)

 

Abstentions: Councillor Rebekah Moll. (1)

 

Postscript – At the meeting of the Committee held on 25 November 2020 an amendment was agreed to correct a factual error in relation to the names recorded for those voting for and against being transposed in the above vote and the minutes now reflect this amendment.

 

Resolved to REFUSE the application for the following reasons:

 

1.    The proposed development by reason of its height, bulk, and design would present an unduly prominent building which fails to satisfactorily transition from the low rise residential streets surrounding the site to the higher rise town centre. As such the proposed development represents a feature that would be discordant and jarring and would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the surrounding area and the approach to the Town Centre. The proposal is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Policies CS8 (Character, Design and Heritage), DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments) and DM11 (Design Approach) of the LDF Core Strategy (Adopted April 2012); Policy K9 (Design Quality in the Town Centre) of the LDF K+20 Kingston Town Centre Area Action Plan (Adopted July 2008); and Policies 7.4 (Local Character) and 7.7 (Location and Design of Tall and Large Buildings) of the London Plan 2016.

 

2.    The proposal, by reason of its design and siting represents an overdevelopment of this restricted site resulting in the under provision of communal and private amenity space which would result in a substandard form of accommodation, adversely affecting the amenities of the future occupiers of the development. Therefore, the proposal would be unacceptable and contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Policy 3.5 of the London Plan (2016), Policies DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments) and DM13 (Housing Quality and Mix) of the LDF Core Strategy (Adopted April 2012), and Policy Guidance 13 and 14 of the LDF Residential Design SPD (Adopted July 2013).

 

3.    In the absence of a signed S106 legal agreement to ensure that the development would be car free and that car club membership is secured, the proposed development would result in an unacceptable additional level of parking pressure in the surrounding streets to the detriment of local parking conditions in the area which in turn could result in congestion and highway safety concerns. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies DM9 (Managing Vehicle Use for New Development) of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames LDF Core Strategy (Adopted April 2012), Policy 6.13 (Parking) of the London Plan 2016 and guidance contained within the LDF Sustainable Transport SPD (Adopted May 2013) and the Council's Planning Obligations SPD (2017).

 

4.    The proposed development, because of the lack of a signed S106 legal agreement in respect of Planning Obligations relating to affordable housing; carbon offset payment and future proofing for linkage to Heat Network; playspace contribution; marketing of wheelchair housing units; resurfacing of footway; and local employment/training opportunities during construction, would not adequately mitigate the impacts of the development, contrary to Policy 8.2 (Planning Obligations) of the London Plan 2016, Policy IMP3 (Securing Infrastructure) of the LDF Core Strategy (April 2012) and the Council's Planning Obligations SPD (2017).

 

Informative(s):

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.    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.

 

 

Voting:

 

For:                 Councillors Stephanie Archer, Roy Arora, Mark Beynon, David Cunningham, Lorraine Dunstone, Lesley Heap, Rebekah Moll, Dave Ryder-Mills, Malcolm Self (Chair). (9)

 

Against:         Councillors Kim Bailey and Simon Edwards. (2)

 

Abstentions: None. (0)

 

 

Publication date: 10/06/2021

Date of decision: 02/09/2020

Decided at meeting: 02/09/2020 - Planning Committee

Accompanying Documents: