286-288 Ewell Road, SURBITON, KT6 7AQ

286-288 Ewell Road, SURBITON, KT6 7AQ — Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 13 November 2024 by Martin Andrews MA(Planning) BSc(Econ) DipTP & DipTP(Dist) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 5 December 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/Z5630/W/24/3346213 286-288 Ewell Road, Surbiton KT6 7AQ • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr B Jaman against the decision of the Council of the Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames. • The application Ref. is 23/03546/FUL. • The development proposed is the erection of a single storey rear extension to form a 2 bed flat, retaining 42m2 Class E floorspace to the frontage, and including the provision of rear amenity space, bin store and cycle store. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Application for Costs 2. An application for an award of costs has been made by Mr B Jaman against the Council of the Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames. This is the subject of a separate Decision. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed 2 bed flat in respect of on-street parking and the safety of the local highway network. Reasons 4.

286-288 Ewell Road, SURBITON, KT6 7AQ — Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames — Appeal Decision The Officers’ Report on the application has had regard to the appeal refusal decision dated 2 June 2023 which related to application ref. 22/02687/FUL for a similar proposal to the current scheme. The effect of this decision combined with a number of amendments in the current proposal has been to eliminate the Council’s objections on issues other than the potential demand for on- street parking. 5. As regards this demand, the Inspector observed in paragraph 16 of the Decision that (i) the appeal site is in a local high street with a PTAL rating of 3 and reasonably well located for sustainable modes of travel, and (ii) that the appeal was supported by a unilateral undertaking made under s106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which would prevent future occupiers from obtaining parking permits for on-street parking. This would avoid any undue congestion or parking pressure. 6. The Inspector’s findings notwithstanding, the Council has maintained its position of refusal. However, there are two separate elements in its assessment https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

286-288 Ewell Road, SURBITON, KT6 7AQ — Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/Z5630/W/24/3346213 that the proposed flat would require either a parking space or mitigation of any potentially adverse effect. 7. Firstly, there is currently no parking control on the roads in the area in the form of residents and visitor permits. In the absence of such controls it is considered that it is the applicant’s / appellant’s responsibility to conduct a ‘parking beat survey’ to demonstrate that there is sufficient local capacity on the highway to accommodate any car(s) associated with the occupation of the proposed flat. 8. Secondly, to address the possibility that such on-street parking controls are at some stage introduced in this part of the Borough, the applicant would, as part of the process of obtaining planning permission for the new residential unit, need to be party to an agreement or undertaking that would preclude the future occupiers from seeking to acquire permits that exempt them from these controls. 9. It is this procedure that was referred to by the Inspector in paragraph 16 of the previous appeal decision and as I have no access to any other documents relating to application ref.

286-288 Ewell Road, SURBITON, KT6 7AQ — Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames — Appeal Decision 22/02687/FUL and the appeal that followed I have no way of knowing whether the matters of the current absence of controls and a requirement for a parking beat survey were raised in evidence. 10. The grounds of the current appeal application address the issue of eligibility for parking permits in the event that on-street parking controls are introduced to the locality of the appeal premises. In this regard it is explained that a completed Unilateral Undertaking was available concurrently with the Council’s processing of the application and remains on offer at this appeal. 11. However, the appellant has not responded at all to the Council’s requirement for a parking survey to demonstrate that until such time as a Controlled Parking Zone is designated for an area that includes the streets or roads where future occupiers of the proposed flat are likely to park a car, there is sufficient on-street capacity without a consequential prejudice to highway safety (the latter arising from either the manoeuvring difficulties of parking or a car being parked in a hazardous location). 12.

286-288 Ewell Road, SURBITON, KT6 7AQ — Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames — Appeal Decision In fairness to the appellant, both the Officer’s Report and the Decision Notice use the conjunction ‘or’ to link the two parking scenarios referred to in paragraphs 7 and 8 above, where ‘and’ would be more appropriate. This is because the term ‘or’ suggests one of the alternative mitigations would suffice, whereas the Council – in my view correctly – seeks both. 13. Nonetheless, I consider that when read as a whole the Council’s position is clear and on the evidence available it has my support. Accordingly, I find that the proposal would conflict with Policy DM9b of the Kingston Upon Thames Core Strategy 2012; Table 10.3 of Policy T6.1 of the London Plan 2021 and with paragraph 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework December 2023 (‘the Framework’). Conclusion and planning balance 14. The Council does not have the requisite 5 year housing supply and therefore paragraph 11d) of the Framework is engaged. In this regard I acknowledge that the addition of the flat would be a small but nonetheless important addition to the housing supply for the Borough. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

286-288 Ewell Road, SURBITON, KT6 7AQ — Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/Z5630/W/24/3346213 15. However, in the absence of evidence to confirm that there would be no harm to highway safety as a result of the need to accommodate the increased demand for on-street parking, the adverse effect of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole. 16. The appeal therefore fails.

286-288 Ewell Road, SURBITON, KT6 7AQ — Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames — Martin Andrews INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3