Planning application · Kingston Upon Thames
21/00044/FUL.
Tolworth Tower Tolworth Broadway Tolworth KT6 7EL
Full / Other Planning at Tolworth Tower Tolworth Broadway Tolworth KT6 7EL, received 6 Jan 2021 — refused on 20 May 2021 (delegated, William Flaherty).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationKingston Upon Thames profile →
Refused
Outcome
20 May 2021
19 wks
Decision time
11 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
82
Documents
82 linked
0
Objections
0 in support
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?
Change of use of the existing 3rd to 22nd floors in Tolworth Tower from office (Use Class B1) to residential (Use Class C3), change of use of the existing 2nd floor from office (Use Class B1) to ancillary amenity space, including a residents gymnasium and lounge (Use Class C3), change of use of existing 1st floor Car Park (sui generis) to create a flexible workspace unit (Dual Use Class C3/E), change of use of part of the existing ground floor undercroft from office (Use Class B1) to create freestanding retail kiosks (Use Class E) with associated external facade alterations and internal refurbishment works to Tolworth Tower; The demolition of the existing retail units fronting Tolworth Broad
Reference
21/00044/FUL
Type
Full Application
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
KT6 7EL
Ward
Council
Received
6 Jan 2021
Target date
7 Apr 2021
Decision date
20 May 2021
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Refused
Council register
Reference
21/00044/FUL
Type
Full Application
Show all 15 rows
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
KT6 7EL
Ward
Council
Received
6 Jan 2021
Target date
7 Apr 2021
Decision date
20 May 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 20 May 2021, delegated decision by William Flaherty — 19 weeks from submission (11 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
6 Jan 2021
Application received
7 Apr 2021
Statutory target date
20 May 2021
Delegated decision: Refused · William Flaherty
6 Jan 2021
Application received
7 Apr 2021
Statutory target date
20 May 2021
Delegated decision: Refused · William Flaherty
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The applicant has failed to demonstrate through the submission of accurate and consistent information
that the scheme would be deliverable or that it would provide the maximum reasonable amount of
affordable housing on-site, 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).
2
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 use of
Tolworth Tower as offices, or for a range of alternative employment uses such as smaller and affordable
offices. The scheme would also result in a net loss of ground floor commercial space and designated
shopping frontages fronting Tolworth Broadway which could adversely impact the viability and vitality of the
District Centre. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Policies CS12, DM17 and DM19 of the
Kingston Core Strategy (2012) and Policies E1 and E9 of the London Plan (2021).
3
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).
4
The proposed tall buildings would conflict with the locational requirements of Policy D9(B) of the London
Plan (2021) and the scale of the proposed tall buildings of the proposed design would compromise the
comfort and enjoyment of the proposed private and communal open spaces within the proposed
development contrary to Policy D9(3) of the London Plan (2021).
5
Through the submission of conflicting and insufficient information, the applicant has failed to demonstrate
that the proposed development would provide sufficient levels of private and communal amenity space and
child playspace. it has further not been robustly demonstrated that the proposed amenity space would be of
a good quality given the incomplete assessment in relation to sunlight and overshadowing and the wind
comfort levels of "standing" for areas of communal and private amenity space. The proposed development
is therefore contrary to Policies DM10 and DM13 of the Kingston Core Strategy (2012), Policies D6 and S4
of the London Plan (2021) and the Kingston Residential Design SPD (2013).
6
Due to the identified inaccuracies with the submitted information in relation to car parking numbers
across the site, Officers are unable to conclude that the proposed level of car parking is justified and that
the proposed mitigation measures would be appropriate. No mechanism has been provided to secure the
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. It has therefore not been demonstrated that the proposed development would not increase
on-street car parking stress and would not harm highway safety, contrary to paragraph 109 of the NPPF
(2019) and Policies DM9 and DM10 of the Kingston Core Strategy (2012).
7
Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the proposed development would not
increase flood risk on-site or elsewhere, contrary to the NPPF (2019), Policy SI 13 of the London Plan
(2021) and Policy DM4 of the Kingston Core Strategy (2012).
8
The proposed development has failed to adopt a site wide approach towards heating and additional
overheating measures and no legal agreement has been completed to secure the necessary net-zero
carbon off-set payment. A robust Circular Economy Statement has not been submitted and the proposed
development would fail to provide the minimum Urban Greening Factor score of 0.4. The proposed
development would therefore be contrary to Policies SI2, SI7 and G5 of the London Plan (2021).
9
The applicant has failed to submit a robust Fire Statement which addresses the requirements of Policy
D12 of the London Plan (2021) to the satisfaction of the Greater London Authority. 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).
10
No mechanism has been submitted by the applicant to secure the required financial contribution to
mitigate the site specific primary healthcare requirements that would arise from the proposed development.
The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies IMP 3 and CS13 of the Kingston Core Strategy (2012), the
Planning Obligations SPD (2017) and Policy S2 of the London Plan (2021).
1
The applicant has failed to demonstrate through the submission of accurate and consistent information
that the scheme would be deliverable or that it would provide the maximum reasonable amount of
affordable housing on-site, 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).
2
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 use of
Tolworth Tower as offices, or for a range of alternative employment uses such as smaller and affordable
offices. The scheme would also result in a net loss of ground floor commercial space and designated
shopping frontages fronting Tolworth Broadway which could adversely impact the viability and vitality of the
District Centre. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Policies CS12, DM17 and DM19 of the
Kingston Core Strategy (2012) and Policies E1 and E9 of the London Plan (2021).
3
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).
Show all 10 rows
4
The proposed tall buildings would conflict with the locational requirements of Policy D9(B) of the London
Plan (2021) and the scale of the proposed tall buildings of the proposed design would compromise the
comfort and enjoyment of the proposed private and communal open spaces within the proposed
development contrary to Policy D9(3) of the London Plan (2021).
5
Through the submission of conflicting and insufficient information, the applicant has failed to demonstrate
that the proposed development would provide sufficient levels of private and communal amenity space and
child playspace. it has further not been robustly demonstrated that the proposed amenity space would be of
a good quality given the incomplete assessment in relation to sunlight and overshadowing and the wind
comfort levels of "standing" for areas of communal and private amenity space. The proposed development
is therefore contrary to Policies DM10 and DM13 of the Kingston Core Strategy (2012), Policies D6 and S4
of the London Plan (2021) and the Kingston Residential Design SPD (2013).
6
Due to the identified inaccuracies with the submitted information in relation to car parking numbers
across the site, Officers are unable to conclude that the proposed level of car parking is justified and that
the proposed mitigation measures would be appropriate. No mechanism has been provided to secure the
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. It has therefore not been demonstrated that the proposed development would not increase
on-street car parking stress and would not harm highway safety, contrary to paragraph 109 of the NPPF
(2019) and Policies DM9 and DM10 of the Kingston Core Strategy (2012).
7
Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the proposed development would not
increase flood risk on-site or elsewhere, contrary to the NPPF (2019), Policy SI 13 of the London Plan
(2021) and Policy DM4 of the Kingston Core Strategy (2012).
8
The proposed development has failed to adopt a site wide approach towards heating and additional
overheating measures and no legal agreement has been completed to secure the necessary net-zero
carbon off-set payment. A robust Circular Economy Statement has not been submitted and the proposed
development would fail to provide the minimum Urban Greening Factor score of 0.4. The proposed
development would therefore be contrary to Policies SI2, SI7 and G5 of the London Plan (2021).
9
The applicant has failed to submit a robust Fire Statement which addresses the requirements of Policy
D12 of the London Plan (2021) to the satisfaction of the Greater London Authority. 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).
10
No mechanism has been submitted by the applicant to secure the required financial contribution to
mitigate the site specific primary healthcare requirements that would arise from the proposed development.
The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies IMP 3 and CS13 of the Kingston Core Strategy (2012), the
Planning Obligations SPD (2017) and Policy S2 of the London Plan (2021).
Policies cited
H4H5DM15NPPFCS12DM17DM19E1E9DM13DM10D6S4DM9SI13DM4SI2SI7G5D12IMP3CS13S2
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
0
In support
0
Total comments
0
Objections
0
In support
0
Total comments
0
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.