Planning application · Kingston Upon Thames
24/02007/FUL.
Meadway House 17 - 21 Brighton Road Surbiton KT6 5LR
Full / Other Planning at Meadway House 17 - 21 Brighton Road Surbiton KT6 5LR, received 16 Aug 2024 — approved on 7 May 2025 (delegated, Lucy Bennett).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationKingston Upon Thames profile →
Approved
Outcome
7 May 2025
38 wks
Decision time
30 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
20
Documents
20 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?
Change of use of part of the ground floor, part of the first floor and the second floor from vacant commercial floorspace (Class E) to a large House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) with a total of 8 rooms and a maximum occupancy of 8 persons (Use Class Sui Generis) with associated external alterations.
Reference
24/02007/FUL
Type
Full Application
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
KT6 5LR
Council
Received
16 Aug 2024
Validated
10 Sep 2024
Target date
5 Nov 2024
Decision date
7 May 2025
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Granted
Council register
Reference
24/02007/FUL
Type
Full Application
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
KT6 5LR
Council
Received
16 Aug 2024
Validated
10 Sep 2024
Target date
5 Nov 2024
Decision date
7 May 2025
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Granted
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
Document
Published
View
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?
Approved on 7 May 2025, delegated decision by Lucy Bennett — 38 weeks from submission (30 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
16 Aug 2024
Application received
10 Sep 2024
Application validated
5 Nov 2024
Statutory target date
7 May 2025
Delegated decision: Approved · Lucy Bennett
16 Aug 2024
Application received
10 Sep 2024
Application validated
5 Nov 2024
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
7 May 2025
Delegated decision: Approved · Lucy Bennett
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
reason for refusal.
The marketing details have again been provided, including marketing particulars for the various units within
Meadway House and details of the interest shown in the site. A letter has also been provided by Cattaneo
Commercial (dated 23.06.2022) which provides details of the marketing process which has been ongoing
since December 2020. The letter also points out the various constraints of the site that deem it unsuitable
for modern employment uses. The details provided demonstrate that the site has been actively marketed
for a number of years and that, whilst interest has been shown in the site, this has not concluded with a
sale.
On this basis, the applicant has sufficiently demonstrated through the submission of cogent and consistent
evidence and robust justification that the site is not suitable and that there is no quantitative or qualitative
demand for other employment uses. The proposal is therefore consistent with Policies CS12 and DM 17 of
the Kingston Core Strategy (2012). For the reasons set out above, this is a neutral matter.
The proposal is for a change of use to a large House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) with a total of 8 rooms
and a maximum occupancy of 8 persons (Use Class Sui Generis). A ratio of 1.8:1 would be applied in
determining the equivalent number of residential units. In this case, the number of residential units would be
4.4 units (rounded down to 4 units) which would make a positive contribution to the Council's housing target
which is afforded significant weight, especially in this sustainable location.
Standard of Accommodation:
NPPF para 135 sets an expectation that new development will be designed to create places that amongst
other things have a 'high standard' of amenity for existing and future users.
Policies CS8 and DM10 of the Core Strategy advise that proposals should relate well to their surroundings
and be of a high standard of design to achieve a more attractive, sustainable and accessible environment.
The Nationally Described Space Standards would not apply to this proposal for a HMO use.
Notwithstanding, all of the habitable rooms with ensuite bathrooms are of a reasonable size (minimum 10
sqm) and have a minimum floor to ceiling height of 2.3m (minimum height of 2.14m over not less than 75%
of the attic room area) in compliance with Council's HMO standards. All habitable windows will be served by
windows for suitable levels of outlook and ventilation.
The previous application (23/00404/FUL) was refused on the following reason:
Given the lack of private and / or communal amenity space, the siting of single aspect habitable room
windows in relation to nearby buildings and communal spaces which will give rise to inadequate levels of
outlook and privacy for future occupiers, and poor levels of daylight and sunlight to a significant number of
habitable rooms, the proposed HMO use is not considered to represent a satisfactory standard of
accommodation, contrary to Policy D6 of the London Plan, and Policies DM10 & DM13 of the Core Strategy
and the Council's HMO guidance.
In the appeal decision of 23/01447/FUL, the Planning Inspector confirmed the proposed scheme would
provide adequate living conditions for future occupiers in terms of outlook, daylight/sunlight, except for
proposed Bedroom 3 and 7. Since the refused scheme, Bedroom 3 and 4 on the first floor have been
removed and Bedroom 7 on the second floor has been amended to provide shared workspace, as opposed
to a private room. This removal or conversion of these rooms addresses the Planning Inspector's concerns.
Obscure glazing will be secured for all bathroom windows by condition to uphold a suitable level of privacy.
Officers now consider the proposed rooms would achieve a suitable standard of accommodation in terms of
outlook, privacy and access to daylight/sunlight. This is supported by the submitted Daylight and Sunlight
Assessment that confirms all windows would achieve adequate levels of daylight/sunlight in compliance
with BRE guidance.
The Planning Inspector also confirmed the number of openings servicing the ground floor shared communal
living/kitchen space would provide sufficient outlook, privacy and natural light for future occupiers. This
addresses Officers concerns about the inadequate standard of the communal space raised by Officers in
the previously refused application.
The proposal provides a small provision of outdoor amenity space which are largely proposed to be used
for refuse and recycling facilities. As confirmed by the Planning Inspector, it is accepted the site provides a
large internal communal area and has access to nearby public open space in close proximity to the site. As
such, the limited provision of outdoor space would not be unduly harmful to the living conditions of future
occupiers. For this reason, this carries limited weight against the proposal.
Overall, the proposal would provide a satisfactory standard of accommodation, in compliance with LP Policy
D6 and CS Policy DM10 and DM13, and Council's HMO guidance. This is given neutral weight in the
assessment of this application.
Character, Design and Impact on Heritage Assets:
NPPF para 131 states the creation of high-quality, beautiful and sustainable buildings and places is
fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve.
LP Policy D3 states that development should enhance local context by delivering buildings and spaces that
positively respond to local distinctiveness through their layout, orientation, scale, appearance and shape
with due regard to existing and emerging street hierarchy, building types, forms and proportions.
CS Policy CS8 and DM10 and the guidance in the Residential Design Guide SPD require proposals to be of
a high quality design that respects the character and appearance of the original building and the prevailing
character of the surrounding area.
Paragraphs 199 to 208 of the NPPF 2021 set out the method for assessing the impact of development
proposals on heritage assets (including non-designated heritage assets). LP Policy HC1 echoes these
requirements.
CS Policy CS8, DM10, DM11 and DM12 require that proposals relate well to their surroundings, recognise
distinctive local features, have regard to the historic environment and be of a high standard to achieve a
more attractive, sustainable and accessible environment.
Only minor external alterations are proposed to facilitate the change of use and these are located at the
rear of the building. These are not considered detrimental to the character and appearance of the existing
building (locally listed) or Surbiton Town Conservation Area. This is given neutral weight in the assessment
of this application.
Impact on Residential Amenity:
NPPF para 135 sets an expectation that new development will be designed to create places that amongst
other things have a 'high standard' of amenity for existing and future users. This is reflected in LP Policy D3.
CS Policy DM10 is clear that development proposals should have regard to the amenities of occupants and
neighbours, including in terms of privacy, outlook, sunlight/daylight, avoidance of visual intrusion and noise
and disturbance.
In comparison to the previous application, no new windows are proposed on any elevation. Only modest
external alterations are proposed and the change of use of the building (in part) is not considered to give
rise to any undue loss of privacy for the occupiers of surrounding residential neighbours. This is given
neutral weight in the assessment of this application.
Highways and Transportation:
NPPF at Para 116 states development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there
would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road
network, following mitigation, would be severe, taking into account all reasonable future scenarios.
LP Policy T6 states car parking should be restricted in line with levels of existing and future public transport
accessibility and connectivity. The maximum standards as set out in policies T6.1 should be applied for
residential development. The LP seeks car free developments in PTAL 6a areas.
CS Policy DM9 and DM10 and the Council's Sustainable Transport SPD 2013 require development
proposals to comply with the car parking standards under the LP.
LP Policy T5 states that developments should provide cycle parking at least in accordance with the
minimum standards set out in Table 10.2. CS Policy DM8 and the Sustainable Transport SPD 2013 together
require new development to provide facilities on-site for cyclists as appropriate, including showers, lockers
and secure, convenient cycle parking, in accordance with the minimum standards set out under the LP.
No off-street parking is proposed which aligns with the objectives under LP Policy T6 and T6.1 for a site
that is well-connected by public transport (PTAL 6a).
The previously application was refused for the following reason:
No mechanism has been secured to preclude residents from applying for on-street car parking permits in
the Controlled Parking Zone, therefore it has not been demonstrated that the proposed development would
not lead to inconsiderate parking and traffic congestion in surrounding roads and thereby have an
unacceptable impact upon highway or pedestrian or highway safety, contrary to paragraph 111 of the NPPF
2021, Policy T6 of the London Plan 2021 and Policies DM9 and DM10 of the Kingston Core Strategy 2012.
Similar to the previous applications, the applicant has not submitted a Transport Statement to identify the
trip generation of the existing uses and the proposed development.
During the previous appeal, the applicant provided a signed Unilateral Undertaking (UU) and the Council
raised no objection. Similarly, a UU has been secured to prevent occupiers of the development from
obtaining residential parking permits in the CPZ. Officers are satisfied this mechanism would be sufficient to
appropriately manage on-street car parking stress within the local area and avoid adverse impacts on
highway safety, in compliance with LP Policy T6, and CS Policy DM9 and DM10. This is attributed neutral
weight in the assessment of this application.
The previous application was also refused on the basis that it had not been demonstrated that sufficient and
adequate cycle parking could be provided on site to accommodate the development.
Since the previously refused application, an additional 3 wall-mounted cycle parking spaces has been
included in the ground floor hallway, as well as space for another 3 bikes closer to the front door.
Additionally, 2 bike lockers have been located in the outdoor community amenity space with capacity for 4
bikes. The provision of 10 cycle parking spaces complies with the minimum cycle parking standard for the 8
occupants under LP Policy T5 and Table 10.2. All bike standards will allow for horizontal storage. This is
acceptable as the Planning Inspector has confirmed vertical cycle parking would not be acceptable as they
are more difficult to access for people with mobility issues. Council's Neighbourhood Traffic Engineer
confirms the cycle storage facilities would be of a suitable quantum and would be secure and accessible, in
compliance with LP Policy T5, CS Policy DM8, and the Sustainable Transport SPD. This is attributed
neutral weight in the assessment of this application.
Refuse and recycling storage facilities are located along the rear communal outdoor space and would
provide space for 4 x 240L refuse and recycle bins and other smaller food waste bins. Officers consider this
quantum to be lower than the standards set in Appendix 2 of the Residential Design Guide SPD which
requires approximately 1,650L of refuse storage capacity and 825L of recycling storage capacity. Elevations
and sections of the waste storage area have been submitted which demonstrate the storage would be
secure and weatherproof. The applicant has confirmed refuse would be stored in the rear but collected from
the kerbside. Officers raise no objection to this arrangement as it is the same as the current arrangement
for the property. A condition will be secured for a Waste Management Plan to be submitted prior to first
occupation to demonstrate how the required quantum of refuse/recycling storage capacity would be
provided.
As recommended by the Neighbourhood Traffic Engineer, a Construction Management Plan will be secured
by condition to ensure the impacts of construction vehicles on the local highway network would be minimal.
Fire Safety:
LP Policy D12 requires all developments to achieve the highest standards of fire safety. A Fire Strategy has
been submitted that demonstrates the proposed development provides adequate levels of fire safety and
evacuation provisions in compliance with LP Policy D12.
Conclusion:
On balance, the proposal is considered to be a high-quality development that will provide additional housing
to assist the borough meet their housing delivery targets. As the development complies with the
Development Plan as a whole, Officers recommend planning permission be granted, subject to conditions.
4. Details of the Application Submission
In accordance with the requirements of Local Government Act 1972 details of the application submission
were available on the Council's website during the assessment of the application.
https://www.kingston.gov.uk/info/200155/planning_applications_and_permissions/263/find_a_planning_appl
ication_or_appeal
---End of Officer Report---
5. In dealing with the application the Council has implemented the requirement in the National Planning
Policy Framework to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive way. We have made available
detailed advice in the form of our statutory policies in the Core Strategy, Supplementary Planning
Documents, Planning Briefs and other informal written guidance, as well as offering a full pre-application
advice service, in order to ensure that the applicant has been given every opportunity to submit an
application which is likely to be considered favourably.
6. Your attention is drawn to the need to comply with the relevant provisions of the Building Regulations, the
Building Acts and other related legislation. These cover such works as - the demolition of existing
buildings, the erection of a new building or structure, the extension or alteration to a building, change of use
of buildings, installation of services, underpinning works, and fire safety/means of escape works. Notice of
intention to demolish existing buildings must be given to the Council's Building Control Service at least 6
weeks before work starts. A completed application form together with detailed plans must be submitted for
approval before any building work is commenced.
7. Reasonable efforts have been made to check that the plans submitted for the purposes of this planning
application are consistent from one to the next, and that the development hereby approved can be
implemented in accordance with all of the plans submitted. Should it transpire that this is not possible and
that your plans are flawed, please be clear that it may be impossible to implement this permission, and that
any development undertaken which relies on this permission may be unauthorised and subject to
enforcement action if expedient.
8. When undertaking demolition and/or noisy building work, please be considerate to your neighbours and
do not undertake work before 8am or after 6pm Monday to Friday, before 8am or after 1pm on a Saturday
or at any time on Sundays or Bank Holidays.
You are advised that the Council does have formal powers to control noise and nuisance under The Control
of Pollution Act 1974, the Clean Air Acts and other relevant legislation, and that any works undertaken
which impact unreasonably upon the surrounding area may be subject to action by the Councils
Environmental Health Department.
9. Where reference is made within the decision notice to a condition applying 'unless otherwise agreed in
writing with the local planning authority', please be aware that only a formal application under section 73 or
96a of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (As Amended) is acceptable as a method of said written
agreement.
10. The operation of the HMO hereby approved may require a separate licence. It is an offence to operate a
licensable HMO without a licence. Please contact the Private Housing Team for further information.
11. You are advised that the approved development is subject to obligations set out by a unilateral
undertaking (dated 01.05.2025). Please ensure that the obligations under the unilateral undertaking are
addressed in accordance with the details and timeframes set out in the undertaking. If you have any
questions regarding the undertaking or how to make a payment or submission required under the
undertaking, please contact the S106/CIL team.
Building Regulations
Please note that this is a planning permission only and you may also require approval under the Building
Regulations. If you are in any doubt about this you can get further information via the following link:
https://www.kingston.gov.uk/building_control
Signed
Barry John Lomax
Head of Development Management
On behalf of Kingston Council
7th May 2025
ROYAL BOROUGH OF KINGSTON UPON THAMES
1
reason for refusal.
The marketing details have again been provided, including marketing particulars for the various units within
Meadway House and details of the interest shown in the site. A letter has also been provided by Cattaneo
Commercial (dated 23.06.2022) which provides details of the marketing process which has been ongoing
since December 2020. The letter also points out the various constraints of the site that deem it unsuitable
for modern employment uses. The details provided demonstrate that the site has been actively marketed
for a number of years and that, whilst interest has been shown in the site, this has not concluded with a
sale.
On this basis, the applicant has sufficiently demonstrated through the submission of cogent and consistent
evidence and robust justification that the site is not suitable and that there is no quantitative or qualitative
demand for other employment uses. The proposal is therefore consistent with Policies CS12 and DM 17 of
the Kingston Core Strategy (2012). For the reasons set out above, this is a neutral matter.
The proposal is for a change of use to a large House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) with a total of 8 rooms
and a maximum occupancy of 8 persons (Use Class Sui Generis). A ratio of 1.8:1 would be applied in
determining the equivalent number of residential units. In this case, the number of residential units would be
4.4 units (rounded down to 4 units) which would make a positive contribution to the Council's housing target
which is afforded significant weight, especially in this sustainable location.
Standard of Accommodation:
NPPF para 135 sets an expectation that new development will be designed to create places that amongst
other things have a 'high standard' of amenity for existing and future users.
Policies CS8 and DM10 of the Core Strategy advise that proposals should relate well to their surroundings
and be of a high standard of design to achieve a more attractive, sustainable and accessible environment.
The Nationally Described Space Standards would not apply to this proposal for a HMO use.
Notwithstanding, all of the habitable rooms with ensuite bathrooms are of a reasonable size (minimum 10
sqm) and have a minimum floor to ceiling height of 2.3m (minimum height of 2.14m over not less than 75%
of the attic room area) in compliance with Council's HMO standards. All habitable windows will be served by
windows for suitable levels of outlook and ventilation.
The previous application (23/00404/FUL) was refused on the following reason:
Given the lack of private and / or communal amenity space, the siting of single aspect habitable room
windows in relation to nearby buildings and communal spaces which will give rise to inadequate levels of
outlook and privacy for future occupiers, and poor levels of daylight and sunlight to a significant number of
habitable rooms, the proposed HMO use is not considered to represent a satisfactory standard of
accommodation, contrary to Policy D6 of the London Plan, and Policies DM10 & DM13 of the Core Strategy
and the Council's HMO guidance.
In the appeal decision of 23/01447/FUL, the Planning Inspector confirmed the proposed scheme would
provide adequate living conditions for future occupiers in terms of outlook, daylight/sunlight, except for
proposed Bedroom 3 and 7. Since the refused scheme, Bedroom 3 and 4 on the first floor have been
removed and Bedroom 7 on the second floor has been amended to provide shared workspace, as opposed
to a private room. This removal or conversion of these rooms addresses the Planning Inspector's concerns.
Obscure glazing will be secured for all bathroom windows by condition to uphold a suitable level of privacy.
Officers now consider the proposed rooms would achieve a suitable standard of accommodation in terms of
outlook, privacy and access to daylight/sunlight. This is supported by the submitted Daylight and Sunlight
Assessment that confirms all windows would achieve adequate levels of daylight/sunlight in compliance
with BRE guidance.
The Planning Inspector also confirmed the number of openings servicing the ground floor shared communal
living/kitchen space would provide sufficient outlook, privacy and natural light for future occupiers. This
addresses Officers concerns about the inadequate standard of the communal space raised by Officers in
the previously refused application.
The proposal provides a small provision of outdoor amenity space which are largely proposed to be used
for refuse and recycling facilities. As confirmed by the Planning Inspector, it is accepted the site provides a
large internal communal area and has access to nearby public open space in close proximity to the site. As
such, the limited provision of outdoor space would not be unduly harmful to the living conditions of future
occupiers. For this reason, this carries limited weight against the proposal.
Overall, the proposal would provide a satisfactory standard of accommodation, in compliance with LP Policy
D6 and CS Policy DM10 and DM13, and Council's HMO guidance. This is given neutral weight in the
assessment of this application.
Character, Design and Impact on Heritage Assets:
NPPF para 131 states the creation of high-quality, beautiful and sustainable buildings and places is
fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve.
LP Policy D3 states that development should enhance local context by delivering buildings and spaces that
positively respond to local distinctiveness through their layout, orientation, scale, appearance and shape
with due regard to existing and emerging street hierarchy, building types, forms and proportions.
CS Policy CS8 and DM10 and the guidance in the Residential Design Guide SPD require proposals to be of
a high quality design that respects the character and appearance of the original building and the prevailing
character of the surrounding area.
Paragraphs 199 to 208 of the NPPF 2021 set out the method for assessing the impact of development
proposals on heritage assets (including non-designated heritage assets). LP Policy HC1 echoes these
requirements.
CS Policy CS8, DM10, DM11 and DM12 require that proposals relate well to their surroundings, recognise
distinctive local features, have regard to the historic environment and be of a high standard to achieve a
more attractive, sustainable and accessible environment.
Only minor external alterations are proposed to facilitate the change of use and these are located at the
rear of the building. These are not considered detrimental to the character and appearance of the existing
building (locally listed) or Surbiton Town Conservation Area. This is given neutral weight in the assessment
of this application.
Impact on Residential Amenity:
NPPF para 135 sets an expectation that new development will be designed to create places that amongst
other things have a 'high standard' of amenity for existing and future users. This is reflected in LP Policy D3.
CS Policy DM10 is clear that development proposals should have regard to the amenities of occupants and
neighbours, including in terms of privacy, outlook, sunlight/daylight, avoidance of visual intrusion and noise
and disturbance.
In comparison to the previous application, no new windows are proposed on any elevation. Only modest
external alterations are proposed and the change of use of the building (in part) is not considered to give
rise to any undue loss of privacy for the occupiers of surrounding residential neighbours. This is given
neutral weight in the assessment of this application.
Highways and Transportation:
NPPF at Para 116 states development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there
would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road
network, following mitigation, would be severe, taking into account all reasonable future scenarios.
LP Policy T6 states car parking should be restricted in line with levels of existing and future public transport
accessibility and connectivity. The maximum standards as set out in policies T6.1 should be applied for
residential development. The LP seeks car free developments in PTAL 6a areas.
CS Policy DM9 and DM10 and the Council's Sustainable Transport SPD 2013 require development
proposals to comply with the car parking standards under the LP.
LP Policy T5 states that developments should provide cycle parking at least in accordance with the
minimum standards set out in Table 10.2. CS Policy DM8 and the Sustainable Transport SPD 2013 together
require new development to provide facilities on-site for cyclists as appropriate, including showers, lockers
and secure, convenient cycle parking, in accordance with the minimum standards set out under the LP.
No off-street parking is proposed which aligns with the objectives under LP Policy T6 and T6.1 for a site
that is well-connected by public transport (PTAL 6a).
The previously application was refused for the following reason:
No mechanism has been secured to preclude residents from applying for on-street car parking permits in
the Controlled Parking Zone, therefore it has not been demonstrated that the proposed development would
not lead to inconsiderate parking and traffic congestion in surrounding roads and thereby have an
unacceptable impact upon highway or pedestrian or highway safety, contrary to paragraph 111 of the NPPF
2021, Policy T6 of the London Plan 2021 and Policies DM9 and DM10 of the Kingston Core Strategy 2012.
Similar to the previous applications, the applicant has not submitted a Transport Statement to identify the
trip generation of the existing uses and the proposed development.
During the previous appeal, the applicant provided a signed Unilateral Undertaking (UU) and the Council
raised no objection. Similarly, a UU has been secured to prevent occupiers of the development from
obtaining residential parking permits in the CPZ. Officers are satisfied this mechanism would be sufficient to
appropriately manage on-street car parking stress within the local area and avoid adverse impacts on
highway safety, in compliance with LP Policy T6, and CS Policy DM9 and DM10. This is attributed neutral
weight in the assessment of this application.
The previous application was also refused on the basis that it had not been demonstrated that sufficient and
adequate cycle parking could be provided on site to accommodate the development.
Since the previously refused application, an additional 3 wall-mounted cycle parking spaces has been
included in the ground floor hallway, as well as space for another 3 bikes closer to the front door.
Additionally, 2 bike lockers have been located in the outdoor community amenity space with capacity for 4
bikes. The provision of 10 cycle parking spaces complies with the minimum cycle parking standard for the 8
occupants under LP Policy T5 and Table 10.2. All bike standards will allow for horizontal storage. This is
acceptable as the Planning Inspector has confirmed vertical cycle parking would not be acceptable as they
are more difficult to access for people with mobility issues. Council's Neighbourhood Traffic Engineer
confirms the cycle storage facilities would be of a suitable quantum and would be secure and accessible, in
compliance with LP Policy T5, CS Policy DM8, and the Sustainable Transport SPD. This is attributed
neutral weight in the assessment of this application.
Refuse and recycling storage facilities are located along the rear communal outdoor space and would
provide space for 4 x 240L refuse and recycle bins and other smaller food waste bins. Officers consider this
quantum to be lower than the standards set in Appendix 2 of the Residential Design Guide SPD which
requires approximately 1,650L of refuse storage capacity and 825L of recycling storage capacity. Elevations
and sections of the waste storage area have been submitted which demonstrate the storage would be
secure and weatherproof. The applicant has confirmed refuse would be stored in the rear but collected from
the kerbside. Officers raise no objection to this arrangement as it is the same as the current arrangement
for the property. A condition will be secured for a Waste Management Plan to be submitted prior to first
occupation to demonstrate how the required quantum of refuse/recycling storage capacity would be
provided.
As recommended by the Neighbourhood Traffic Engineer, a Construction Management Plan will be secured
by condition to ensure the impacts of construction vehicles on the local highway network would be minimal.
Fire Safety:
LP Policy D12 requires all developments to achieve the highest standards of fire safety. A Fire Strategy has
been submitted that demonstrates the proposed development provides adequate levels of fire safety and
evacuation provisions in compliance with LP Policy D12.
Conclusion:
On balance, the proposal is considered to be a high-quality development that will provide additional housing
to assist the borough meet their housing delivery targets. As the development complies with the
Development Plan as a whole, Officers recommend planning permission be granted, subject to conditions.
4. Details of the Application Submission
In accordance with the requirements of Local Government Act 1972 details of the application submission
were available on the Council's website during the assessment of the application.
https://www.kingston.gov.uk/info/200155/planning_applications_and_permissions/263/find_a_planning_appl
ication_or_appeal
---End of Officer Report---
5. In dealing with the application the Council has implemented the requirement in the National Planning
Policy Framework to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive way. We have made available
detailed advice in the form of our statutory policies in the Core Strategy, Supplementary Planning
Documents, Planning Briefs and other informal written guidance, as well as offering a full pre-application
advice service, in order to ensure that the applicant has been given every opportunity to submit an
application which is likely to be considered favourably.
6. Your attention is drawn to the need to comply with the relevant provisions of the Building Regulations, the
Building Acts and other related legislation. These cover such works as - the demolition of existing
buildings, the erection of a new building or structure, the extension or alteration to a building, change of use
of buildings, installation of services, underpinning works, and fire safety/means of escape works. Notice of
intention to demolish existing buildings must be given to the Council's Building Control Service at least 6
weeks before work starts. A completed application form together with detailed plans must be submitted for
approval before any building work is commenced.
7. Reasonable efforts have been made to check that the plans submitted for the purposes of this planning
application are consistent from one to the next, and that the development hereby approved can be
implemented in accordance with all of the plans submitted. Should it transpire that this is not possible and
that your plans are flawed, please be clear that it may be impossible to implement this permission, and that
any development undertaken which relies on this permission may be unauthorised and subject to
enforcement action if expedient.
8. When undertaking demolition and/or noisy building work, please be considerate to your neighbours and
do not undertake work before 8am or after 6pm Monday to Friday, before 8am or after 1pm on a Saturday
or at any time on Sundays or Bank Holidays.
You are advised that the Council does have formal powers to control noise and nuisance under The Control
of Pollution Act 1974, the Clean Air Acts and other relevant legislation, and that any works undertaken
which impact unreasonably upon the surrounding area may be subject to action by the Councils
Environmental Health Department.
9. Where reference is made within the decision notice to a condition applying 'unless otherwise agreed in
writing with the local planning authority', please be aware that only a formal application under section 73 or
96a of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (As Amended) is acceptable as a method of said written
agreement.
10. The operation of the HMO hereby approved may require a separate licence. It is an offence to operate a
licensable HMO without a licence. Please contact the Private Housing Team for further information.
11. You are advised that the approved development is subject to obligations set out by a unilateral
undertaking (dated 01.05.2025). Please ensure that the obligations under the unilateral undertaking are
addressed in accordance with the details and timeframes set out in the undertaking. If you have any
questions regarding the undertaking or how to make a payment or submission required under the
undertaking, please contact the S106/CIL team.
Building Regulations
Please note that this is a planning permission only and you may also require approval under the Building
Regulations. If you are in any doubt about this you can get further information via the following link:
https://www.kingston.gov.uk/building_control
Signed
Barry John Lomax
Head of Development Management
On behalf of Kingston Council
7th May 2025
ROYAL BOROUGH OF KINGSTON UPON THAMES
Policies cited
CS12DM17CS8DM10D6DM13T6DM9Residential Design Guide SPD 2NPPF para 135
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.