Planning application · Kingston Upon Thames
20/01966/FUL.
Adams House And 5-8 Dickerage Lane New Malden KT3 3SF
Full / Other Planning at Adams House And 5-8 Dickerage Lane New Malden KT3 3SF, received 13 Aug 2020 — refused on 1 Jun 2021 (delegated, Harsha Bhundia).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationKingston Upon Thames profile →
Refused
Outcome
1 Jun 2021
42 wks
Decision time
34 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
51
Documents
51 linked
—
Objections
not captured
No
Appeal
none recorded
Record from the Kingston Upon Thames planning register as captured; documents link to the council's own files. Nearby applications are context, not part of this application.
Application
What is it?
Erection of part-four and part-eight storey mixed use building comprising 641 sqm commercial floorspace (Use Class B1(c)) and 40 self-contained residential units above (15 x one-bedroom, 16 x two-bedroom and 9 x three-bedroom), with associated amenity space, landscaping, car parking, refuse and cycle enclosures (following the demolition of existing buildings on site)
Reference
20/01966/FUL
Type
Full Application
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
KT3 3SF
Ward
Council
Received
13 Aug 2020
Validated
19 Aug 2020
Target date
18 Nov 2020
Decision date
1 Jun 2021
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Refused
Council register
Reference
20/01966/FUL
Type
Full Application
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
KT3 3SF
Ward
Council
Received
13 Aug 2020
Validated
19 Aug 2020
Target date
18 Nov 2020
Decision date
1 Jun 2021
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Refused
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
Document
Published
View
Show all 10 rows
Documents open on the Kingston Upon Thames portal (the portal needs its documents tab opened first — the link handles that). View the application page ↗
Decision
What happened?
Refused on 1 Jun 2021, delegated decision by Harsha Bhundia — 42 weeks from submission (34 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
13 Aug 2020
Application received
19 Aug 2020
Application validated
18 Nov 2020
Statutory target date
1 Jun 2021
Delegated decision: Refused · Harsha Bhundia
13 Aug 2020
Application received
19 Aug 2020
Application validated
18 Nov 2020
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
1 Jun 2021
Delegated decision: Refused · Harsha Bhundia
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The applicant has failed to demonstrate through the submission of cogent and consistent evidence or
robust justification that there is no quantitative or qualitative demand for the existing employment floorspace
as offices, or for a range of alternative employment uses such as smaller and affordable offices. The
scheme could adversely impact the viability of the LSIS. The proposed development is therefore contrary to
Policies CS12, DM17 and DM19 of the Kingston Core Strategy (2012) and Policies E1 and E7 of the
London Plan (2021).
2
The applicant has failed to robustly demonstrate that the site is unsuitable to provide a minimum of 30%
of dwellings as 3 or more bedroom units and no robust arguments or evidence has been submitted to
demonstrate that a policy compliant provision of 3 or more bedroom units would be unviable. The proposed
development would fail to contribute towards meeting the objectively assessed need within the Borough for
3 bedroom units. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Policy DM13 of the Kingston Core
Strategy (2012).
3
The applicant has failed to robustly demonstrate that the scheme would provide the maximum
reasonable amount of affordable housing contributions contrary to Policies H4 and H5 of the London Plan
(2021), Policy DM15 of the Kingston Core Strategy (2012), the Mayor's Affordable Housing and Viability
SPG (2017) and the NPPF (2019).
4
The proposed tall building would conflict with the locational requirements of Policy D9(B) of the London
Plan (2021) and it has not been adequately demonstrated that the scale of the proposed tall building or of
the proposed design would address the Visual, Environmental, Functional and Cumulative impacts,
including microclimate impacts as required by C of Policy D9. The proposal would fail to comply with Policy
D9 of the London Plan 2021 and Policy DM10 of the Kingston Core Strategy (2012).
5
It is considered that the scheme would not make optimal use of the site due to the provision of
significantly over sized units and as such, would be contrary to Paragraph 123 of the NPPF 2019 and
Policy GG2 of the London Plan 2021.
6
It has not been demonstrated that the proposed development would conform with the scale, pattern or
character of development in the area, or that the design and massing would sit comfortably with the
surroundings. The proposed building due to its design, bulk, height and massing would appear incongruous
and would not contribute positively to the surrounding townscape and would detract from the character and
appearance of the area and the streetscene. The ground floor is overly car dominated and provides poor
quality public realm. As such the proposal is contrary to the NPPF (2019), Policies D3 and D4 of the
London Plan (2021) and Policies DM10 and DM12 of the Kingston Core Strategy (2012).
7
It has not been demonstrated that the scheme would provide good quality accommodation, particularly in
relation to the layout of internal communal areas, whether the provision of mechanical ventilation and
mechanical cooling would compromise internal floor to ceiling heights. Units nos 25 and 31 would have no
access to openable windows nor any private outdoor amenity space. The accessibility, useability, comfort
levels and deliverability of the communal amenity areas has not been demonstrated. The proposal is
contrary to Policies D4 and D6 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy DM10 of the Kingston Core Strategy
(2021).
8
he applicant has failed to submit a robust Fire Statement which addresses the requirements of Policy
D12 of the London Plan (2021). It has therefore not been demonstrated that the proposed development
would achieve the highest standards of fire safety, contrary to Policy D12 of the London Plan (2021).
9
It has not been robustly demonstrated that the proposed development would comply with the drainage
hierarchy and that the proposed development would not increase flood risk on-site or elsewhere, contrary
to Paragraph 163 and 165 of the NPPF (2019), Policy SI 13 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy DM4 of
the Kingston Core Strategy (2012).
10
It has not been demonstrated that the proposal would protect the biodiversity value of the site, or
secure biodiversity net-gain. The proposal is therefore contrary to the NPPF, Policy G6 of the London Plan
and Policy DM6 of the Core Strategy 2012.
11
It has not been demonstrated that the minimum Urban Greening Factor target of 0.4 would be achieved
on site. The scheme would be contrary to Policy G5 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy DM3 of the
Kingston Core Strategy (2012).
12
It has not been clearly demonstrated that the scheme would achieve the maximum on-site carbon
reductions or that the carbon-offset payments would comply with Policy S1 2 of the London Plan.
Furthermore, no mechanism to secure the required net-zero carbon offsetting payment has been
submitted. The proposal would be contrary to Policy SI 2 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy DM3 of the
Kingston Core Strategy (2012).
13
It has not been demonstrated that the proposed development would not increase on-street car parking
stress and would not harm highway safety. Furthermore, no mechanism has been provided to secure a
financial contribution towards the funding of a potential future Controlled Parking Zone (or to preclude
residents from applying for car parking permits within any such designated zone) or Car Club membership
for residents. The proposal would be contrary to paragraph 109 of the NPPF (2019), Policies T4 & T6 of
the London Plan and Policies DM9 and DM10 of the Kingston Core Strategy (2012).
1
The applicant has failed to demonstrate through the submission of cogent and consistent evidence or
robust justification that there is no quantitative or qualitative demand for the existing employment floorspace
as offices, or for a range of alternative employment uses such as smaller and affordable offices. The
scheme could adversely impact the viability of the LSIS. The proposed development is therefore contrary to
Policies CS12, DM17 and DM19 of the Kingston Core Strategy (2012) and Policies E1 and E7 of the
London Plan (2021).
2
The applicant has failed to robustly demonstrate that the site is unsuitable to provide a minimum of 30%
of dwellings as 3 or more bedroom units and no robust arguments or evidence has been submitted to
demonstrate that a policy compliant provision of 3 or more bedroom units would be unviable. The proposed
development would fail to contribute towards meeting the objectively assessed need within the Borough for
3 bedroom units. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Policy DM13 of the Kingston Core
Strategy (2012).
3
The applicant has failed to robustly demonstrate that the scheme would provide the maximum
reasonable amount of affordable housing contributions contrary to Policies H4 and H5 of the London Plan
(2021), Policy DM15 of the Kingston Core Strategy (2012), the Mayor's Affordable Housing and Viability
SPG (2017) and the NPPF (2019).
Show all 13 rows
4
The proposed tall building would conflict with the locational requirements of Policy D9(B) of the London
Plan (2021) and it has not been adequately demonstrated that the scale of the proposed tall building or of
the proposed design would address the Visual, Environmental, Functional and Cumulative impacts,
including microclimate impacts as required by C of Policy D9. The proposal would fail to comply with Policy
D9 of the London Plan 2021 and Policy DM10 of the Kingston Core Strategy (2012).
5
It is considered that the scheme would not make optimal use of the site due to the provision of
significantly over sized units and as such, would be contrary to Paragraph 123 of the NPPF 2019 and
Policy GG2 of the London Plan 2021.
6
It has not been demonstrated that the proposed development would conform with the scale, pattern or
character of development in the area, or that the design and massing would sit comfortably with the
surroundings. The proposed building due to its design, bulk, height and massing would appear incongruous
and would not contribute positively to the surrounding townscape and would detract from the character and
appearance of the area and the streetscene. The ground floor is overly car dominated and provides poor
quality public realm. As such the proposal is contrary to the NPPF (2019), Policies D3 and D4 of the
London Plan (2021) and Policies DM10 and DM12 of the Kingston Core Strategy (2012).
7
It has not been demonstrated that the scheme would provide good quality accommodation, particularly in
relation to the layout of internal communal areas, whether the provision of mechanical ventilation and
mechanical cooling would compromise internal floor to ceiling heights. Units nos 25 and 31 would have no
access to openable windows nor any private outdoor amenity space. The accessibility, useability, comfort
levels and deliverability of the communal amenity areas has not been demonstrated. The proposal is
contrary to Policies D4 and D6 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy DM10 of the Kingston Core Strategy
(2021).
8
he applicant has failed to submit a robust Fire Statement which addresses the requirements of Policy
D12 of the London Plan (2021). It has therefore not been demonstrated that the proposed development
would achieve the highest standards of fire safety, contrary to Policy D12 of the London Plan (2021).
9
It has not been robustly demonstrated that the proposed development would comply with the drainage
hierarchy and that the proposed development would not increase flood risk on-site or elsewhere, contrary
to Paragraph 163 and 165 of the NPPF (2019), Policy SI 13 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy DM4 of
the Kingston Core Strategy (2012).
10
It has not been demonstrated that the proposal would protect the biodiversity value of the site, or
secure biodiversity net-gain. The proposal is therefore contrary to the NPPF, Policy G6 of the London Plan
and Policy DM6 of the Core Strategy 2012.
11
It has not been demonstrated that the minimum Urban Greening Factor target of 0.4 would be achieved
on site. The scheme would be contrary to Policy G5 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy DM3 of the
Kingston Core Strategy (2012).
12
It has not been clearly demonstrated that the scheme would achieve the maximum on-site carbon
reductions or that the carbon-offset payments would comply with Policy S1 2 of the London Plan.
Furthermore, no mechanism to secure the required net-zero carbon offsetting payment has been
submitted. The proposal would be contrary to Policy SI 2 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy DM3 of the
Kingston Core Strategy (2012).
13
It has not been demonstrated that the proposed development would not increase on-street car parking
stress and would not harm highway safety. Furthermore, no mechanism has been provided to secure a
financial contribution towards the funding of a potential future Controlled Parking Zone (or to preclude
residents from applying for car parking permits within any such designated zone) or Car Club membership
for residents. The proposal would be contrary to paragraph 109 of the NPPF (2019), Policies T4 & T6 of
the London Plan and Policies DM9 and DM10 of the Kingston Core Strategy (2012).
Policies cited
CS12DM17DM19E1E7DM13H4H5DM15NPPFD9DM10GG2D3D4DM12D6D12SI13DM4G6DM6G5DM3London Plan 2SI2T4T6DM9
Public response
Comment counts were not captured for this application.
People
Who is involved?
Name
Role
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
Agent · consultant profile
Case officer — delegated decision
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
Agent · consultant profile
Case officer — delegated decision
Place
What affects it?
Context around the site — not part of this application. Designations over the site: use the map's designations filter (conservation areas, listed buildings, Article 4, flood risk …). Decisions within 250 metres of the site are listed below — context, not this application.
Other applications within 250 metres (context — nearby, not this application)
No other geocoded decision is recorded within 250 metres.