Planning Atlas
Planning Atlas›Kingston Upon Thames›…Norbiton - OLD ward›22/00674/PAMA
Planning application · Kingston Upon Thames

22/00674/PAMA.

Magnum House Unit C 164 London Road Kingston Upon Thames KT2 6QW

Other at Magnum House Unit C 164 London Road Kingston Upon Thames KT2 6QW, received 15 Feb 2022 — refused on 27 Apr 2022 (delegated, James Garside).

Kingston Upon Thames›Norbiton - OLD›KT2 6QW›22/00674/PAMA
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationKingston Upon Thames profile →
Refused
Outcome
27 Apr 2022
10 wks
Decision time
2 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
10
Documents
10 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?

Prior notification of change of use of ground floor from commercial unit (Class E) to a two bed dwelling (Class C3)

Reference
22/00674/PAMA
Type
PA Class MA - Change from Class E to C3
Site
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
KT2 6QW
Ward
Council
Received
15 Feb 2022
Validated
15 Mar 2022
Target date
10 May 2022
Decision date
27 Apr 2022
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Refused
Council register
Reference
22/00674/PAMA
Type
PA Class MA - Change from Class E to C3
Site
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
KT2 6QW
Ward
Council
Received
15 Feb 2022
Validated
15 Mar 2022
Target date
10 May 2022
Decision date
27 Apr 2022
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Refused
Council register
Documents

What was filed?

Document
Published
View
DECISION NOTICE - REFUSE - PAMA
27 Apr 2022
Officer Report
26 Apr 2022
670-CDA-Z1-00-DR-A-05-0201 Rev.02 - Proposed Rear Elevation
14 Mar 2022
670-CDA-Z1-00-DR-A-00-0100 Rev.01 - Site Location Plan
14 Mar 2022
670-CDA-Z1-XX-DR-A-01-0201 Rev.02 - Existing Rear Elevation
14 Mar 2022
670-CDA-Z1-XX-DR-A-05-0200 Rev.02 - Proposed Front Elevation
14 Mar 2022
670-CDA-Z1-XX-DR-A-01-0200 Rev.02 - Existing Front Elevation
14 Mar 2022
Application Form
15 Feb 2022
670-CDA-Z1-00-DR-A-05-0100 Rev.02 - Proposed Ground Floor Pl
15 Feb 2022
670-CDA-Z1-00-DR-A-01-0100 Rev.02 - Existing Ground Floor Pl
15 Feb 2022
DECISION NOTICE - REFUSE - PAMA
27 Apr 2022
Officer Report
26 Apr 2022
670-CDA-Z1-00-DR-A-05-0201 Rev.02 - Proposed Rear Elevation
14 Mar 2022
Show all 10 rows
670-CDA-Z1-00-DR-A-00-0100 Rev.01 - Site Location Plan
14 Mar 2022
670-CDA-Z1-XX-DR-A-01-0201 Rev.02 - Existing Rear Elevation
14 Mar 2022
670-CDA-Z1-XX-DR-A-05-0200 Rev.02 - Proposed Front Elevation
14 Mar 2022
670-CDA-Z1-XX-DR-A-01-0200 Rev.02 - Existing Front Elevation
14 Mar 2022
Application Form
15 Feb 2022
670-CDA-Z1-00-DR-A-05-0100 Rev.02 - Proposed Ground Floor Pl
15 Feb 2022
670-CDA-Z1-00-DR-A-01-0100 Rev.02 - Existing Ground Floor Pl
15 Feb 2022

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 27 Apr 2022, delegated decision by James Garside — 10 weeks from submission (2 over the 8-week target).

Timeline

Date
Event
15 Feb 2022
Application received
15 Mar 2022
Application validated
10 May 2022
Statutory target date
27 Apr 2022
Delegated decision: Refused · James Garside
15 Feb 2022
Application received
15 Mar 2022
Application validated
10 May 2022
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
27 Apr 2022
Delegated decision: Refused · James Garside

Why it was refused

Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
It has not been adequately demonstrated that the existing unit falls within any of the uses specified within MA.1(2)(a) or (b) and therefore the building does not benefit from the rights afforded by Schedule 2, Part 3, Class MA of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended).
2
No mechanism has been secured to preclude residents from applying for on-street car parking permits in the Controlled Parking Zone or car club membership for future occupiers and so, in the absence of cogent evidence or assessment, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that overspill car parking from the site would not result in an unacceptable adverse impact on on-street car parking stress or result in an unacceptable adverse impact on highway safety, contrary to paragraph 111 of the NPPF, Policy T4 of the London Plan (2021) and Policies DM8, DM9 and DM10 of the Kingston Core Strategy (2012).
3
The applicant has failed to demonstrate that sufficient and adequate cycle parking could be provided on site to accommodate the development, contrary to Policy T5 of the London Plan (2021), Policy DM8 of the Council's Core Strategy 2012 and the Sustainable Transport SPD 2013.
4
It has not been demonstrated through the submission of robust or cogent evidence, such as a full BRE complaint Daylight & Sunlight Assessment, that the proposed development would be provided with adequate natural light in all habitable rooms of the dwellinghouse, contrary to MA.2(2)(f) of Schedule 2, Part 3, Class MA of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended).
5
It has not been demonstrated through the submission of cogent evidence that the proposed development would achieve minimum 2.3m floor to ceiling heights over 75% of the Gross Internal Area and that the proposed flats would comply with the nationally described space standard issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government on 27th March 2015, contrary to 3(9A), 'Permitted Development', of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended).
1
It has not been adequately demonstrated that the existing unit falls within any of the uses specified within MA.1(2)(a) or (b) and therefore the building does not benefit from the rights afforded by Schedule 2, Part 3, Class MA of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended).
2
No mechanism has been secured to preclude residents from applying for on-street car parking permits in the Controlled Parking Zone or car club membership for future occupiers and so, in the absence of cogent evidence or assessment, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that overspill car parking from the site would not result in an unacceptable adverse impact on on-street car parking stress or result in an unacceptable adverse impact on highway safety, contrary to paragraph 111 of the NPPF, Policy T4 of the London Plan (2021) and Policies DM8, DM9 and DM10 of the Kingston Core Strategy (2012).
3
The applicant has failed to demonstrate that sufficient and adequate cycle parking could be provided on site to accommodate the development, contrary to Policy T5 of the London Plan (2021), Policy DM8 of the Council's Core Strategy 2012 and the Sustainable Transport SPD 2013.
Show all 5 rows
4
It has not been demonstrated through the submission of robust or cogent evidence, such as a full BRE complaint Daylight & Sunlight Assessment, that the proposed development would be provided with adequate natural light in all habitable rooms of the dwellinghouse, contrary to MA.2(2)(f) of Schedule 2, Part 3, Class MA of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended).
5
It has not been demonstrated through the submission of cogent evidence that the proposed development would achieve minimum 2.3m floor to ceiling heights over 75% of the Gross Internal Area and that the proposed flats would comply with the nationally described space standard issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government on 27th March 2015, contrary to 3(9A), 'Permitted Development', of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended).
Policies cited
T4DM8DM9DM10NPPFT5

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.