Councillors and committees

Agenda and minutes

You can view the individual reports for this meeting by selecting the headings from the numbered list of items at the bottom of this page. Alternatively you can view the entire agenda by selecting 'Agenda Reports Pack' below.

Watch key Council meetings here

Venue: Richard Mayo Hall, Eden Street, Kingston upon Thames

Contact: Marian Morrison 020 8547 4623  email:  marian.morrison@kingston.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

1.

Apologies for Absence

Minutes:

Apologies were received from Councillor Emily Davey and Councillor Dave Ryder-Mills substituted and as the appointed Chair of the Planning Sub, Cllr Dave Ryder-Mills chaired the meeting.

2.

Declarations of Interest

Minutes:

Declarations of interest were made by Councillors David Cunningham, Caroline Kerr and Rebekah Moll in respect of agenda item 5, Appendix A, Planning Consultation – 229-255 Kingston Road, Kingston upon Thames (Prince of Wales and Homebase site) as they are members of the Development Control Committee which will determine the application.  They took no part in the discussion but listened to the comments made.

3.

Minutes

Minutes:

As this meeting was the first Kingston Town Planning Sub to be held, there were no minutes of a previous meeting to agree.

4.

PLANNING APPLICATIONS

Minutes:

A summary of the reasons for granting permission and of any relevant development plan policies and proposals is included in the report of the Assistant Director of Strategic Planning and Infrastructure on each application where permission is recommended.  Permitted applications are subject to the conditions, informatives and other requirements set out in the report together with any other details on late responses to consultations or comments received since the agenda was printed, revised drawings circulated at the meeting and amended recommendations, additional conditions and informatives set out below.

 

Late material was tabled for the following applications:

18/00244 FUL – Vacant Drying Room, Dale Court, York Road

19/00873 FUL – Kingsmeadow

18/12777 FUL & 18/12778 LBC – The Keep

 

Applications refused are for the reasons set out in the report by the Interim Head of Planning and any amended reasons are set out below.

 

Under the arrangements for speaking on planning applications objectors and applicants spoke on the following applications:

 

 

1 The Keep (18/12777FUL & 18/12778LBC)

Allessandro Palermo, Nallaperumal Pitchandy and Alessandro Visintin spoke as objectors.

(There was no speaker on behalf of the applicant)

 

Drying room, Dale Court (18/00244FUL)

Mr and Mrs Yi Fei spoke as objectors.

(There was no speaker on behalf of the applicant)

5.

Kingsmeadow, 433A Cambridge Road, Kingston upon Thames KT1 3PB (19/00873FUL) pdf icon PDF 309 KB

To determine the application

Minutes:

Erection of hammer throwing cage, concrete base and apron and surrounding pole mounted floodlights and access ramp.

 

The sub committee heard that the application was to relocate the existing hammer throwing site at Kingsmeadow and any approval would require the submission of a lighting management plan which considered the impact on bats and birds.

 

With the permission of the sub committee Councillor Sharron Falchikov-Sumner addressed the sub committee under Standing Order 29.  She requested that the decision on the application be deferred on the grounds that the ecological reports are inadequate. She submitted that Council policy requires a full bat survey to be undertaken.  She also referred to the removal of top soil which had been placed into the Hogsmill river with a detrimental environmental effect particularly on the ecology of the river bank and that recent tree removal was not appropriate.  In response the Planning Officer confirmed that the surveys undertaken by the applicant were considered to be adequate and it was not possible for the sub committee to take into account previous tree removals, however other Council Departments could take this forward and some of the environmental concerns.  He added that only Tree Preservation Orders or any restrictions previously imposed by way of a planning condition can prevent tree removal. 

 

During discussion members raised concerns about possible light pollution and proposed that Condition 4 requiring the submission of a lighting management scheme which is approved by the authority be amended to further require that lighting should be bat and bird friendly and an informative be added stating that any harm to a protected species arising on the Kingsmeadow site could constitute a crime.

 

RESOLVED that:  the application is PERMITTED with amended condition 4, and informative:

 

Condition 4 - Notwithstanding the details submitted, a lighting management plan/Scheme ensuring that any lighting is bat and bird friendlyshall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the beneficial use of the facility hereby approved. The development shall only be carried out / used in accordance with the approved details.

 

Informative 1 – Anyone who takes, damages or destroys the nest of any wild bird whilst that nest is in use or being built is guilty of an offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and prior to commencing work you should ensure that no nesting birds will be affected.

 

Anyone who kills, injures or disturbs bats, obstructs access to bat roosts or damages or disturbs bat roosts, even when unoccupied by bats, is guilty of an offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations. Prior to commencing work you should ensure that no bats or bat roosts would be affected. If it is suspected that a bat or bat roost is likely to be affected by the proposed works, you should consult Natural England (0845 600 3078).

 

Voting:

 

For – Councillors Olivia Boult, David Cunningham, Caroline Kerr, Rebekah  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

6.

114 Lower Ham Road, Kingston upon Thames (19/00125FUL) pdf icon PDF 153 KB

To determine the application

Minutes:

Erection of a dwellinghouse with associated works including re-arrangement of parking and vehicular access following demolition of existing dwellinghouse.

 

Members heard that this application was a re-submission of the application considered by Kingston Town Neighbourhood Committee in July 2016 which was approved.  The three year period for commencement of the works has now been exceeded.  The planning officer confirmed that there had been no changes to the application and that the planning policies prevailing at the time of the previous decision had not changed in relation to this application.

 

RESOLVED that:  the application is PERMITTED

 

Voting:

 

For – Councillors Olivia Boult, Caroline Kerr, Rebekah Moll, Dave Ryder-Mills, Jon Tolley

 

Against – David Cunningham, Maria Netley, Olly Wehring

 

Abstain – none

 

 

7.

1 The Keep, Kingston upon Thames (18/12777 FUL & 18/12778 LBC) pdf icon PDF 365 KB

To determine the applications

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Erection of a mansard roof extension including the installation of rooflights to provide 2 x three bedroom units. 

Two applications were considered:  Full (FUL) and Listed building Consent (LBC).

 

Members heard that The Keep was a Grade two listed building and is a significant historic site in the town.

 

Members also heard the following points made by the three objectors:

 

·         The Local Development Frameworks core strategy states that planning proposals must ensure adequate communal outdoor space i.e. at least 10 sq m per dwelling and 1 sq m per occupant.  The proposed development falls short of this by nearly 20%.

·         Any condition to increase the cycle storage will reduce the garden amenity space

·         It is proposed to relocate the refuse and recycling stores to the current heart of the garden impacting on enjoyment and further reducing the garden amenity space.

·         The additional entrance to the bin stores will impact on the safety and security of the garden for children playing.

·         Planning permission granted in March 2012 stated that “the roof of the building shall not be converted or used as a balcony or a sitting out area and no access shall be gained except for maintenance purposes”.

·         The proposal fails to follow the Household Development General Design principles para 4.2 which states that extensions should respect the character and appearance of the original building and be smaller in scale than the original building.

·         Other issues were given including loss of privacy, overlooking, increased overshadowing, potential structural loading and foundation impacts, impact on trees and planting in the garden.

 

The sub committee considered the addition of conditions for the cycle and bin storage areas but formed the view that the proposal would be detrimental to one of Kingston’s more important heritage assets together with the impacts on the garden amenity space for the current residents. 

 

The sub committee refused the two applications (Full and Listed Building Consent) for the following reasons:

 

a)    The design would have a detrimental to this important heritage asset;

b)    The proposed enlargement and relocation of the cycling and bin storage would compromise the residential amenity space enjoyed by the existing occupants including children;

c)    The proposed glass entrance structureslocated at roof levelwould, when viewed from the street level, fail to preserve or enhance the special architectural and historical merit of the listed building; and 

d)    The view of the proposed mansard roof line from the sides and rear would be out of keeping with external appearance of the grade 2 listed building.

 

RESOLVED that:  the applications are REFUSED

 

Voting:

 

1.     For application 18/12777 FUL

 

For – Councillors David Cunningham, Rebekah Moll, Jon Tolley

 

Against – Councillors Olivia Boult, Caroline Kerr, Councillor Maria Netley, Dave Ryder-Mills, Olly Wehring

 

Abstain – none

 

 

2.     For application 18/12778 LBC

 

Voting:

 

For application 18/12778 LBC

 

For – Councillors David Cunningham, Rebekah Moll, Jon Tolley

 

Against – Councillors Olivia Boult, Caroline Kerr, Councillor Maria Netley, Dave Ryder-Mills, Olly Wehring

 

Abstain – none

 

8.

Drying Room below No. 31 Dale Court, York Road, Kingston upon Thames KT2 6JQ (18/00244 AGN) pdf icon PDF 243 KB

To determine the application

Minutes:

Conversion of vacant and disused drying room into 1 x two bedroom dwelling (affordable homes unit) with bike stores (no additional parking spaces and it will be a car free unit).

 

RESOLVED that:  the application is PERMITTED

 

Voting: unanimously in favour

9.

Planning consultation - 229-255 Kingston Road (Prince of Wales and Homebase site) pdf icon PDF 350 KB

The Committee is requested to make comments on the application prior to determination by Development Control Committee

Minutes:

The views of the sub committee were sought on a proposal to redevelop the site to provide 297 residential units in buildings ranging from 4 to 7 storeys, with 216 sq m commercial space (A1, A2, A3, A4, B1 and D1) at ground floor, 124 car parking spaces (including car club and accessible provision), communal landscaped amenity areas, secure cycle parking and other associated development.  The current site comprises the Homebase store and garden centre, the Prince of Wales Public House and Avenue Terrace which is a small cul de sac located between the two sites. 

 

The report set out the details of the unit mix comprising 21 studio units, 91 x 1 bedroom units, 127 x 2 bedroom units and 58 x 3 bedroom units, of which 30 would be wheelchair units.  Whilst 27 trees would be removed, 27 replacement trees would be planted.

 

A presentation on the proposal was given by the applicant.  As well as showing the current site and plans, views and elevations of the proposal, it provided details of the consultation and engagement which had taken place earlier in the year and which informed the development of the proposal.  The sub committee heard that the development would reduce traffic movements (with the exception of the morning) and environmentally friendly initiatives such as heat pump technology would be employed. 

 

A range of comments were made by members:

 

·         The overall “broken up” style of the development was welcomed.

·         Disability friendly housing needs to be provided across a range of tenures and sizes of dwelling.

·         Possibility of parking impacts on the local area from the new development particularly California Road which already experiences problems.  There are already increasing traffic problems in St John’s Road associated with the new Aldi store.

·         A question was raised about whether the development should be car capped and it was suggested that some residents will look to park in local roads rather than paying for car parking permits.  Any future move towards CPZ would need to be considered carefully and learning from the lessons of North Kingston.

·         A comment was made that the development is a long distance from Norbiton station.

·         Some members considered that the mix of active and passive electric points did not adequately support the move towards electric vehicles.

·         Members acknowledged that the quality of the community consultation engagement on the proposal was good.

·         Impacts on School places were highlighted; whilst members considered that the impacts on primary schools may not be significant, there would be considerable pressure on secondary schools as there are already problems for the Norbiton area.  Furthermore the Cambridge Road Estate Redevelopment could add further pressure as the numbers of local residents increase.

·         The need for more affordable housing was raised by several members.  This is a top priority for Kingston and this scheme does not deliver sufficiently on this.   The planning officer advised that there is a need to know more about viability which will enable further dialogue on optimising tenure.  Planning officers were supportive  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

10.

URGENT ITEMS AUTHORISED BY THE CHAIR

Minutes:

There were no urgent items.