177 Kings Road, KINGSTON UPON THAMES, KT2 5JG

177 Kings Road, KINGSTON UPON THAMES, KT2 5JG — Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 October 2022 by James Blackwell LLB (Hons) PgDip an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 14 November 2022 Appeal Ref: APP/Z5630/W/22/3295062 177 Kings Road, Kingston Upon Thames KT2 5JG • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Doogle Holdings Ltd against the decision of Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames. • The application Ref 21/03488/FUL, dated 1 November 2021, was refused by notice dated 18 January 2022. • The development proposed is change of use of rear first floor from ancillary Use Class A1 (retail) to C3 (dwellings), together with remodelling including second floor extension to create two maisonettes (2 x 1B2P) with associated landscaped communal amenity space, cycle store and bin stores. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Applications for Costs 2. An application for costs has been submitted by Doogle Holdings Ltd against Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames. This application is the subject of a separate decision. Preliminary Matters 3. The appellant has submitted a signed unilateral undertaking as part of this appeal.

177 Kings Road, KINGSTON UPON THAMES, KT2 5JG — Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames — Appeal Decision The obligations within the agreement would secure car free development, by precluding future occupiers of the residential units from obtaining car parking permits. 4. Submission of the unilateral undertaking would therefore conceivably overcome the Council’s fourth reason for refusal, which was imposed due to a lack of planning agreement to secure car free development. However, as I am dismissing the appeal on other grounds, I have not considered the content of the planning obligation in further detail, nor have I have considered whether the obligations would meet the tests of fairness, necessity and relatedness. 5. Part of the Council’s second reason for refusal concerned alleged shortcomings with the appellant’s Daylight & Sunlight Report, and in particular, how the development would impact on neighbouring properties in this regard. The appellant has submitted an updated version of the report as part of this appeal, and the Council has confirmed that this now addresses its earlier concerns. In turn, I have not considered this matter further. In terms of main issues, this means I have only addressed the privacy impact of the proposal. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

177 Kings Road, KINGSTON UPON THAMES, KT2 5JG — Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/Z5630/W/22/3295062 Main Issues 6. In this context, the main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • the living conditions of neighbouring properties, with regard to privacy; • the living conditions of future occupiers of the development, with regard to levels of internal and external space; and • levels of employment space within the Council’s area. Reasons Living Conditions (Neighbouring Occupiers) 7. The northern elevation of the two new flats would run parallel with the length of the rear gardens along the eastern side of Staunton Road. This arrangement means that a number of windows and doors to the proposed flats would have clear and unobstructed views over certain properties along this road, most notably nos. 2 and 4. This would give rise to significant potential for overlooking, both over the gardens to nos. 2 and 4, as well as into the habitable rooms within the rear of no. 2. This risk is further amplified by the inclusion of Juliet balconies on the northern elevation of the first floor to the flats. In turn, the scope for direct overlooking from the new flats would severely undermine the privacy experienced by the occupiers of nos.

177 Kings Road, KINGSTON UPON THAMES, KT2 5JG — Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames — Appeal Decision 2 and 4 Staunton Road, which would be to the detriment of their living conditions. 8. Whilst obscure glazing could help minimise the impact of overlooking to a certain degree, this would not be appropriate for the Juliet balcony doors, which would be an important source of daylight into the new flats. Obscure glazing would also not overcome the potential for overlooking when the doors to the balconies were open. Such mitigation would therefore not properly overcome the potential harm to neighbouring occupiers. 9. I acknowledge that prior approval has been granted for residential use of the part of the appeal property which directly faces the dwellings along Staunton Road (reference 21/02810/PRA). Nonetheless, the development authorised under the prior approval would be smaller in scale, would not include a second storey, and would not include Juliet balconies. Whilst each case must be considered on its own merits, the impact of the two schemes with regard to privacy would therefore be materially different. 10. For these reasons, the development would cause unacceptable harm to the privacy of the occupiers of nos. 2 and 4 Staunton Road, which would be to the detriment of their living conditions.

177 Kings Road, KINGSTON UPON THAMES, KT2 5JG — Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames — Appeal Decision The proposal would therefore conflict with Policy DM10 of the Council’s Core Strategy (2012) (Core Strategy), which seeks to ensure new development properly safeguards the amenity and living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. It would also conflict with Policy D3 of the London Plan 2021, which requires new development to procure appropriate outlook, privacy and amenity. Living Conditions (Future Occupiers) 11. The Nationally Described Space Standard (NDSS) says that one bedroom duplex units, with an occupancy of 2 persons, should have a minimum gross internal area of 58m². Both of the proposed units would comfortably exceed this baseline. In terms of head height, the London Plan (2021) requires 75% of https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

177 Kings Road, KINGSTON UPON THAMES, KT2 5JG — Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/Z5630/W/22/3295062 the internal area to be over 2.5 metres. Once again, both units would exceed this requirement. Internally, the proposed units would therefore provide an acceptable provision of internal space. 12. Policy Guidance 13 of the Council’s Residential Design SPD (2013) indicates that new flats should have 10m² private external amenity space, plus an additional 1m² per additional occupant. Policy Guidance 14 of the Design SPD goes on to say that a minimum of 50m² of communal amenity space should be provided per development, and where there is a shortfall of private amenity space for any of the individual units, this shortfall should be added to the communal provision. 13. The proposed development would include an area of approximately 67m² of communal amenity space, which would be located as a podium area at first floor level, between the dwellings. This would represent the entire external amenity provision for all the residential units across the appeal site. When assessed against the guidance in the Design SPD, it would therefore fall short of the suggested minimum requirement.

177 Kings Road, KINGSTON UPON THAMES, KT2 5JG — Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames — Appeal Decision Nonetheless, in respect of private areas of amenity space at least, Policy Guidance 13 does say that provision may vary considerably, depending on the location and context of the site. It specifically refers to town centre locations as an example, where it may be difficult to achieve minimum standards without compromising the optimisation of a site’s housing potential. The guidance can therefore be applied flexibly, depending on a site’s context. 14. In this instance, given the mixed use of the site and the extent of the property’s footprint, it is difficult to foresee how more extensive areas of external amenity space could be provided, without compromising the site’s potential for housing. The quality of the podium which serves as communal space for the existing flats, is also in a poor state of repair. The proposed scheme would significantly upgrade the space, thereby providing qualitative enhancements to the communal area. In this context, I consider that the provision of external amenity space to serve the dwellings within the development would be adequate. 15.

177 Kings Road, KINGSTON UPON THAMES, KT2 5JG — Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames — Appeal Decision I am therefore satisfied that the development would provide acceptable living conditions for the future occupiers of the development, in terms of both internal and external space. In this regard, the development would align with the content of Policy DM10 of the Core Strategy, which seeks to promote a good level of amenity for occupiers, ensuring new residential development makes adequate provision for private and/or communal amenity space. Policy DM4 of the London Plan (2021) is more closely related to design, so is not directly relevant to this issue. Loss of Employment Space 16. Part of the appeal property, which historically has been used as ancillary retail space, would be converted to a residential flat. The development would therefore result in some loss (approximately 75m²) of employment floorspace. Nonetheless, and as mentioned, the appellant has already been granted prior approval for conversion of this space to a new residential dwelling. Irrespective of the current proposal, this employment space could therefore be converted to residential use. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

177 Kings Road, KINGSTON UPON THAMES, KT2 5JG — Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/Z5630/W/22/3295062 17. There is no substantive evidence before me to suggest that the appellant would not seek to convert the employment space pursuant to the prior approval, in the event of dismissal of the appeal application. I therefore consider there is more than a theoretical possibility of implementation, if the proposed scheme were not to proceed. The prior approval therefore represents a legitimate fallback. When the fallback is considered, the proposed scheme would not result in any additional loss of employment space, over and above what has already been consented. Much of the employment space within the appeal site is also in a state of disrepair, and is essentially redundant in terms of actual use. In practice, its loss would therefore not make any meaningful difference to employment provision within the locality. 18. For these reasons, I am satisfied that the loss of employment space would be acceptable. The development would broadly reflect the principles of Policy DM17 of the Core Strategy, which seek to safeguard the Council’s stock of employment land and premises. Other Matters 19.

177 Kings Road, KINGSTON UPON THAMES, KT2 5JG — Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames — Appeal Decision The Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing, which means its policies relating to delivery of housing are out of date. This means paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the Framework (the tilted balance) is engaged. Nonetheless, paragraph 219 of the Framework is clear that due weight should still be given to existing policies according to their degree of consistency with the Framework. 20. Paragraph 130 of the Framework is explicit that new development should function well and add to the overall quality of an area. It highlights that development should promote health and wellbeing through a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. The content of the Framework therefore reflects the overriding amenity principles of the Core Strategy and the London Plan in terms of new residential development. Even accounting for the Framework’s objective of boosting the supply of housing and the Council’s housing land supply position, the conflict between the proposal and the relevant policies of the Core Strategy and the London Plan should therefore be attributed significant weight in this appeal. 21.

177 Kings Road, KINGSTON UPON THAMES, KT2 5JG — Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames — Appeal Decision The net addition of two dwellings would make a modest, yet welcome contribution to the Council’s housing supply. The development would also re- use a vacant brownfield site, which would optimise its use, and facilitate qualitative improvements to the existing employment provision. Nonetheless, I do not consider that these benefits would be sufficient to outweigh the significant harm to the living conditions of nos. 2 and 4 Staunton Road. Consequently, the adverse impacts of the development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh its benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. As a result, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply in this instance. Conclusion 22. Whilst I have found in favour of the appellant with regard to the living conditions of future occupiers of the scheme and loss of employment space, the development would significantly impact on the privacy of neighbouring dwellings. The proposal would therefore conflict with the development plan as a whole, and there are no other considerations, including the provisions of the https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4

177 Kings Road, KINGSTON UPON THAMES, KT2 5JG — Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/Z5630/W/22/3295062 Framework, which outweigh this finding. For the reasons given, the appeal should therefore be dismissed.

177 Kings Road, KINGSTON UPON THAMES, KT2 5JG — Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames — James Blackwell INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5