KINGSTON AND NORTH KINGSTON NEIGHBOURHOOD
Conservation Areas Advisory Committee

PLANNING APPLICATION COMMENT FORM
DATE: 13 March 2019

CA25
 RBK ref:

19/00125/FUL 		Address: 114 Lower Ham Road Kingston Upon Thames KT2 5BD

Planning Officer: Andrew Forrest

Description of proposed works:

Erection of a dwellinghouse with associated works including rearrangment of parking and vehicular access following demolition of existing dwellinghouse

APPRAISAL

By full committee on …… 13 March 2019 …… with …… 7 …… members present

Issued on 15 Mar 2019


1. Positive support
2. No objection
3. Objection
X
4. Objection unless revised as below
5. No comment/neutral
6. Lack of detail
7. Decision already issued



Reason for objection:

Strong objection.

This proposal is a re-application of an existing consented application (15/12628) which was approved by RBK in July 2016 with limited conditions, including that the development commence within 3 years ie by July 2019. The applicant has so far failed to ensure this & is now re-applying for planning permission.

In our view the existing consent was recommended by RBK officers & approved by RBK councillors on highly contentious grounds & represents a very selective/ subjective interpretation of prevailing planning law, policy & good practice. It was objected to at the time by numerous residents due inter alia to the loss of neighbours’ residential amenity & by KTCAAC due to the harm its uncompromising design, much higher pitch & mass (than the present dwelling) would cause to this historic riverside setting.

Nothing material has changed in this re-application. The acute modernist form, high roof pitch - because of the site's topography, higher than any adjacent property - & greater mass than the existing property, all remain intact.

We agree that the current property (now rented) would benefit from sympathetic refurbishment/ development, but of a scale & design in keeping with its immediate surroundings. We believe the existing consented/ proposed application, however, fails to achieve this & does not conform to prevailing planning law, policy & good practice.

RBK has a statutory duty under S71 Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) to prepare, consult on & publish up to date proposals for each of its individual Conservation Areas (CAs). Historic England advises it is good practice to use professionally accredited experts for these purposes. This approach is underscored by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which requires a positive strategy for each CA involving specific, detailed policies. It encourages local planning authorities to ensure developments in CAs ‘are sympathetic to the local character & history & the surrounding built environment & landscape setting’.

We are unaware of any recent RBK individual CA-specific strategies & policies or public consultations thereon. Furthermore RBK does no longer has any dedicated conservation experience & expertise. Therefore we do not believe RBK is compliant with conservation law & good practice. Rather it is allowing development in its CAs to proceed piecemeal with some damaging results, such as the recently approved Neptune House proposal (18/12290) in CA24 & potentially this existing consented/ proposed application in CA25.

The existing consented/ proposed application is predicated on the assumption of a new private dwelling house more than 1.5 times the size of the existing one. With its uncompromising brutalist design language & detail, high pitch & mass, it does not pay any special attention to the preservation or enhancement of the character or appearance of the CA in question, quite the opposite, in contravention of S72 of the Act. Neither does it preserve or enhance in any way, rather it detracts from, the existing heritage asset, North Riverside, contrary to the London Plan & CS08 & DM12 of RBK’s own Core Strategy.

The NPPF states where a development leads to harm (or worse) to a designated heritage asset, consent should be refused unless it is outweighed or at least matched by public benefits. There are no public benefits from the existing consented/ proposed application which involves solely the development of a single-family private residential dwelling - of inappropriate appearance & scale for the plot.

The London Plan states housing development should be of the highest quality in relation to its context & wider environment & should enhance the quality of its location taking account of its physical context & character. The existing consented/ proposed application fails to do so by jarring with the context & traditional character of this stretch of the North Riverside CA.

CS8 & DM10 of RBK’s Core Strategy advise planning proposals should relate well to their surroundings & achieve a more attractive environment which this existing consented/ proposed application does not. CS8 states that RBK will protect areas of high quality & historic interest from inappropriate development & will seek opportunities for sensitive enhancement that have regard to their historic & natural environment, enhance locally distinctive places & relate well & connect to their surroundings. The existing consented/ proposed application achieves none of these aims. DM10 says development will pay due regard to the prevailing typology of an area. The modernist design language & details of this existing consented/ proposed application show a total disregard for the largely Victorian/ Edwardian character of this stretch of the CA.

The case officer’s report recommending the existing consented application concedes that the proposed design is not in keeping with its neighbouring plots & would have an impact due to the divergence of its modern contemporary architecture. But it opines - highly subjectively - that the development would comply with the NPPF, London Plan & RBK’s Core Strategy because it would be an 'interesting addition', bring 'attractiveness & vibrancy' & be an 'innovative & modern response that would work well over time'(!)

We fundamentally disagree with such an opinion-based conclusion & object to this re-application on the facts of prevailing planning law, policy & good practice.