Meetings, Agenda and Minutes

Councillor Simon James and Councillor Trevor Heap declared a prejudicial interest in A11 (4 Kingston Road, New Malden, KT3 3LX).

Reason: They know one of the registered speakers in a personal and political capacity.

A summary of the reasons for granting permission and of any relevant development plan policies and proposals is included in the report of the Interim Head of Planning 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.

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 application.

11/14260            1 Ullswater Close, London, SW15 3RF

Mr Michael Scott and Mr Vernon East spoke as objectors to the proposal and Ms Beverly Tourle and Mr Mark Lawson spoke in support of the proposal.

11/14502            40 Kingston Road, New Malden, KT3 3LX

Jane Eyre spoke as an objector to the proposal and Mr Kumar Kumarkumaran spoke in support of the proposal.

11/14404            59 Kingston Road, New Malden, KT3 3PD

Ms Anchal Grewan and Mr John Knowles, on behalf of Beverly Ward Residents’ Association, spoke as objectors to the proposal.

11/14544            47 Matlock Way, New Malden, KT3 3AT

Professor Brian Austen and Mr Craig Massey, on behalf of Mr Derek Hall, spoke as objectors to the proposal and Mr Colin Smith spoke on behalf of the applicant.

11/14443            Little Coombe, Warren Cutting, Kingston upon Thames, KT2 7HS

Mr Peter Bloxham spoke as an objector to the proposal and Mr Tim Garland-Jones spoke on behalf of the applicant.

11/14249            71 Leyfield, Worcester Park, KT4 7LP

Mr Paul Langdon spoke as an objector to the proposal and Mr Hamid Nejad spoke in support of the application.

11/14458            91 Alric Avenue, New Malden, KT3 4JP

Dr Ray Meerabeau spoke as an objector to the proposal and Mr and Mrs Jackson spoke in support of the proposal.

11/14435 and 11/14436            9 Crescent Road, Kingston Upon Thames, KT2 7RD

Mr Brian Godding, on behalf of Kingston upon Thames Society, spoke as an objector to the proposal and Mr John Dyer-Grimes spoke on behalf of the applicant.

RESOLVED that the following applications be permitted, refused or deferred as indicated.

Demolition of existing house and erection of a pair of semi detached 4 bedroom houses and 1 detached 6 bedroom house with detached garages.

REFUSE

Reason for Refusal

In considering the report and recommendation to permit, Members were of the view that the proposal would result in inappropriate development which would be visually intrusive, unsympathetic to the existing locality and adversely affect the character and appearance of the adjoining established residential area, thereby failing to respect and enhance local character, contrary to Policies BE11, RES3 and STR6 of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan First Alteration and Policies CS8 and DM10 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (Submission Draft, May 2011).

Erection of part single, part two storey rear extension to facilitate conversion to 2 x 2 bedroom flats.

REFUSE

Reason for the decision

In considering the report and recommendation to permit, Members were of the view that the proposed development would provide unsatisfactory residential accommodation for the future occupiers, contrary to Polices H1 (Protection of Residential Amenities), and H7 (Residential Conversions and Houses in Multiple Occupation) of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan First Alteration.

Note: Councillor Simon James and Councillor Trevor Heap declared a prejudicial interest and left the room.

Reason: They know one of the registered speakers in a personal and political capacity.

Demolition of existing petrol filling station structures and erection of a part two, part four and part five storey development comprising 19 x 1-bedroom flats, 19 x 2-bedroom flats, 5 x 3 bed houses and 1 x 3 bedroom single storey house with basement parking (from Kingston Road) for 53 vehicles (5 disabled spaces), 45 cycle spaces, refuse storage and landscaping.

REFUSE

Reason for the decision

In considering the report and recommendation to permit, Members were of the view that:

1.                  The part of the proposed development fronting Kingston Road would, by reason of its scale and height, sit uncomfortably with neighbouring properties and would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the surrounding area, contrary to Policies STR6, RES3 and BE11 of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan First Alteration and Policies CS8 and DM10 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (Submission Draft, May 2011).

2.                  The balconies in the northern (rear) elevation of the part of the proposed development fronting Kingston Road would lead to overlooking and loss of privacy to the rear gardens of the proposed 3-bedroom terrace houses fronting Cleveland Road to the detriment of the amenity of their future occupiers, contrary to Policies H1 and BE12 of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan First Alteration and Policy DM10 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (Submission Draft, May 2011).

3.                  The proposal would fail to provide a satisfactory provision of affordable housing contrary to Policy 3.12 of the London Plan (July 2011), the Council's Supplementary Planning Document on Affordable Housing and Policy H9 of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan (First Alteration).

Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of a two storey dwelling.

REFUSE

Reason for the decision

In considering the report and recommendation to permit, Members were of the view that the proposal by reason of its bulk, scale and design would detract from the character and appearance of the area, contrary to Policies STR6 and BE11ofthe Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan (First Alteration) and Policy DM10 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (Submission Draft, May 2010).

Demolition of existing dwelling.  Erection of new dwelling with ancillary double garage and extension to existing outbuilding.

REFUSE

Reason for the decision

In considering the report and recommendation to permit, Members were of the view that:

1.                  the proposal by reason of its bulk, scale and siting, would appear visually overbearing and would adversely impact on the amenities of the occupiers of Sandy Holt in terms of loss of outlook, contrary to Policies BE12 and H1 of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan (First Alteration) and Policy DM10 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (Submission Draft, May 2010).

2.                  the proposal by reason of its bulk, scale and design, would detract from the character and appearance of the surrounding area, contrary to Policies BE11 and STR6 of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames UDP (First Alteration) and Policies CS8 and DM10 of the LDF Core Strategy (Submission Draft, May 2010).

Retention of outbuilding, Retention of Single Storey Rear Extension, Part Single Storey Part Two Storey Side Extension and Front Porch Extension (amended plans received).

PERMIT subject to the following amendment to Condition 4:

4.      Within three months of the date of this approval, details of the guttering of the ground floor part of the side extension shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and altered on site in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To protect the amenities and privacy of the occupiers of the adjoining residential properties in accordance with Policies BE12 (Layout and Amenity of Buildings and Extensions) and H1 (Protection of Residential Amenities) of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan First Alteration.

Alterations to existing patio and retention of existing boundary treatments.

REFUSE

Reason for the decision

In considering the report and recommendation to permit, Members were of the view that the proposal would lead to overlooking and loss of privacy to the detriment of the occupiers of number 93 Alric Avenue, contrary to Policies BE12 and H1 of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan (First Alteration) and Policy DM10 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (Submission Draft, May 2010).

Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 1 x 5-bedroom, 2-storey semi detached house to include basement and accommodation in the roofspace.

Demolition of existing dwelling house in connection with the erection of 1 x 5-bedroom, 2-storey semi detached house to include basement and accommodation in the roofspace.            11/14436

PERMIT

[NOTE:  Councillor Patrick Codd requested that his vote against this decision be recorded]

[NOTE:  Councillor Ken Smith dissented from this decision]

Demolition of existing bungalow.  Erection of a pair of semi detached two storey dwellings with accommodation in roof space.

PERMIT subject to the following additional conditions and informative:

Additional Conditions

14.       The hardstanding to be paved and level to prevent water draining onto the Public Highway.

15.            Additional details of construction be added including method of working, storage of materials, site access, wheel washing.

16.       No construction of any residential unit hereby permitted shall begin until details of the lifetime homes specification/standards have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Additional Informative

5.         Any alterations to the existing crossover to be at the applicants’ own expense.

Reason: In the interests of the wheelchair housing occupants in order to comply with Policy DM10 (Design Requirements for New Developments including House Extensions) of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (Submission Draft, May 2011), Policy 7.2 (An Inclusive Environment) of the London Plan July 2011 and comply with Supplementary Planning Document 'Access for All' (July 2005).

Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 5 bedroom dwelling with rooms in the roof and an integral garage.

The application was subject to appeal on the grounds of non-determination, and, as such, could not be determined by the Council. The application was reported to ascertain the stance that the Sub Committee would have taken were the application to have been determined.

NOTED that had the Sub Committee been in a position to determine the application, it have agreed with the recommendation to PERMIT for the reasons as set out in the report.

Retention of alterations to front boundary wall, new pedestrian access including alterations to existing pedestrian access, new brick wall to western boundary and trellis to rear garden wall.

PERMIT

Note: Members requested the applicant be mindful that unless all necessary works are carried out within three months of this decision, as per Condition 1, the Council would commence enforcement proceedings.

Proposed tennis court, cricket wicket & golf driving bay, constructed in tarmacadam, with 3 metre high weld mesh fencing.

PERMIT

The Appeal Decisions received by the Council between 1 July and 26 August 2011 were NOTED.