Appeal 6005791

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for demolition of industrial building, change of use from industrial use (Use Class E(g)(iii)) to dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) and construction of 3 bedroom dwelling including associated hard and soft landscaping works at [site address] , [site address] , [name], Surbiton [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/02460/FUL, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

An application for costs was made by [name] against the Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

The appellant submitted an updated site plan with the appeal which amended the location of the refuse collection point. This is a modest amount of evidence the appellant has submitted to make their case in relation to a reason for refusal that does not amend or result in a significant or material change to the appeal scheme. These details are not fundamental to the acceptability of the scheme and the Council has had the opportunity to comment on the site plan. I am satisfied that by considering the amended plan I am not prejudicing any party.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal on highway safety for the occupiers of the proposed development and the occupiers of 13 and [address]; and • in the event of a policy conflict being identified in respect of the first main issue, whether material considerations indicate a decision other than in accordance with the development plan.

The appeal site comprises a single storey industrial building located between [address] and [address], accessed via an entrance from [address] between two residential properties (13 and [address]).

It is common ground between the main parties that the appellant has a ‘fallback position’ in the form of the grant of prior approval reference 25/00644/PAMA ([name] for the change of use from industrial use (Use Class E(g)(iii) to dwellinghouse (Use Class C3)), granted 13th May 2025. The proposed development would provide a three-bedroom dwelling and the fallback position would provide a two- bedroom dwelling on the site, accessed via the same access point which serves the existing industrial unit.

Whilst the access point is narrow and located between two residential dwellings, it does currently serve an industrial unit and would serve the fallback position and I have not been provided with substantive evidence that the width of the access has caused highway safety concerns in the past. Therefore, whilst the access may be restricted in width, this situation would not change from the existing or that serving the development granted prior approval.

The occupiers of No [address] have raised concerns regarding the impact of the proposal on their safety, accessing and exiting their home. However, this situation has not changed from the existing situation and furthermore I have not been provided with substantive evidence that the existing access is unsafe in terms of its width, visibility and specification for the existing or intended use or has led to accidents. Based on the information before me, I have not been convinced the access is unsafe and that this should be a reason for refusal.

The appeal site is within a location with moderate public transport accessibility (the [name] (NTE) has reduced the PTAL rating in the appeal proposal to 3 from 4 in the fallback position despite no alterations to the site’s location). Less than one (0.75) parking spaces were required for a three-bedroom dwelling for the fallback position (which was the basis on which the NTE made their assessment despite the fallback position only showing a two- bedroom dwelling). The Officer report for the appeal scheme states the maximum parking provision for this area would be 1.5 spaces per dwelling, although this is not reflected in the NTE comments which does not reference the number of parking spaces required.

It was accepted in the fallback position that the existing arrangements on site provided a single parking space and this was deemed acceptable by the Council. The proposed development has sufficient space for a single car and there is on street permit parking that the proposed development would be able to utilise. The Council state this is a change to the application where no mention of utilising on street parking was made. However, as the existing site and fallback position can accommodate a single car and utilise on street parking, I consider on street parking to be a viable option for the appeal scheme if required.

[name] note the presence of a side access door to No. [address] and that the parking of a car on the access road outside the side door may inconvenience the occupiers of No [address], this is the existing situation and that of the fallback position. Concern has also been raised regarding a potential conflict between access to the rear garden and cycle storage at No 14 and occupiers of the proposed development utilising the access road for parking. There are no substantive differences between the fallback position and the appeal proposal with regards to the access road and parking that would mean access to the rear garden and cycle storage at No 14 would be any different and therefore warrant a different approach being taken.

In conclusion, I have not been provided with substantive evidence that at the present time, the access results in conditions prejudicial to highway safety. No alterations are proposed to the access to serve the fallback position or the appeal scheme and therefore I have not found significant harm would result from the proposal on highway safety for the occupiers of the proposed development and the occupiers of 13 and [address].

The fallback position is a material consideration and the Council attributed this significant weight in their officers report but consequently reduced the amount of weight given to the fallback position in its Statement of Case reasoning the appellant would be unlikely to build out the fallback position due to the condition of the existing building and therefore its suitability for conversion and the appellants intention to erect a dwelling with three bedrooms.

The Council also point to the lack of clearance of conditions for the fallback position as evidence the appellant is not intending to implement the fallback position. However, I do not share this view. It is reasonable for the appellant to await the outcome of this appeal process before seeking to discharge conditions to save unnecessary time and expense in the event the appeal is allowed.

No substantive evidence has been provided to demonstrate the existing building would not be suitable for and capable of conversion or that it could not meet current building regulations standards once converted. It is also possible that a subsequent purchaser of the site could implement the fallback position if the appellant chose not to.

I note that internal alterations could also be carried out to the building once the change of use to residential had been completed under the prior approval, to allow the building to be a three- bedroom dwelling rather than two through the rearrangement of internal partitioning and that the Highways Impact Assessment was prepared on the basis of three bedrooms. [name] note the Council comments regarding internal alterations to allow the building to be a three-bedroom dwelling creating an awkward and substandard layout, given all the above, I am satisfied that if the appeal proposal were not allowed, there is every likelihood that the fallback would be built and therefore give the fallback position significant weight.

The Council have directed me towards condition 3 of planning permission reference 30989 which was the original permission for the use of the existing premises for light industrial/warehouse purposes, which it claims restricts car parking on the access road to between operating hours and days. This is not the wording of the condition. Condition 3 makes no mention of when cars can park on the access road, it restricts the hours of use of the premises and the hours within which the delivery or dispatch of goods can take place. I have therefore not been provided with substantive evidence that parking on the access road could not and does not take place outside of the operating hours of the premises. This unrestricted parking would be no different to the fallback position or that of the

The Council contend the use of the access road would intensify as a result of the change of use to residential. I have not been provided with evidence of the basis of this assumption and do not agree. Whilst the premises could not operate or accept deliveries outside the nominated working hours, I have not been provided with evidence that within those hours there were restrictions on the number of deliveries or dispatches that could be made utilising the access road. Based on the size and nature of the business, the appellants submission that the proposed use of the site would generate less trips during the course of the day than a Class E use and that a residential use would be unlikely to be regularly visited by commercial vehicles, it is likely that the proposal would see less vehicle movements and a positive effect on highway safety as a result.

The appellant has confirmed that the occupiers of No [address] do not have a right to pass across the application site and I have not been provided with evidence to the contrary. Despite this, the appellants have moved the refuse presentation point further into the site away from the kerb edge. The location of the refuse presentation point within the access road would not block access to No [address] who have no right to pass across the application site in any event.

In conclusion, whilst the existing access and parking arrangements at the site maybe substandard when compared against modern day requirements, I have not been provided with substantive evidence that the access and parking arrangements have been directly responsible for accidents or that the proposed development would be significantly worse for the potential occupiers or occupiers of neighbouring properties with regards to highway safety than the existing or fallback situation. Despite this, the deficiencies of the access would bring the scheme into conflict with policies DM9 and DM10 of the Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2012 which aim to ensure new development provides car parking in accordance with the standards in the London Plan and does not compromise highway safety.

I note the interested party comments in relation to the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. The bulk and mass of the proposed development would be similar to the existing development on the site. The proposed development would therefore not have an overbearing impact or cause a loss of daylight which would harmfully affect the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. The Council has also not found harm in this respect.

The positioning of the rooflights (1.7m above floor level) and the glazing to the side elevation would not cause a loss of privacy to the occupiers of neighbouring properties.

The height and location of the boundary treatment to the front of the proposed dwelling would not be directly in line with a neighbouring property and would therefore not adversely affect the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties through loss of outlook and would provide the proposed occupants with an appropriate level of privacy.

Working hours, control of dust and emissions during construction and demolition, unexpected contamination and noise from external plant would be controllable by condition. Any effects from the construction period would be short-term and I am satisfied could be mitigated to satisfactory levels in accordance with relevant policies and standards in this regard.

The appellant has submitted a Preliminary Roost Assessment and an [name] and Emergence survey confirming no bats or other protected species or habitats constraints were identified on site. I have not been provided with substantive evidence the ecological reports do not meet the necessary requirements and as a result, I have no reason to conclude the results are unreliable.

No building works are planned within the garden area which would have any significant affect on trees in neighbouring properties.

Matters regarding the party wall and access rights do not form part of my considerations in this appeal decision as this is a civil matter between the parties concerned.

I have had regard to the list of suggested conditions provided by the Council and have considered these in light of the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance.

In the interests of certainty I have imposed a time limit condition and approved plans condition.

To ensure an acceptable appearance is achieved for the site in the interest of the character of the area, I have imposed conditions relating to boundary treatment and materials.

To ensure satisfactory living conditions for the occupiers of neighbouring properties, I have imposed conditions relating to the noise impacts from the development, the construction hours and the submission of a Construction Management Plan.

In the interests of flood prevention, I have imposed conditions requiring the construction of the basement to be carried out in accordance with the ‘Structural statement for the formation of the basement project’ document and the submission of a final detailed drainage design.

To minimise the risks associated with land contamination, I have imposed a condition requiring the submission of an assessment of the contamination, remediation and verification report to be approved by the local planning authority prior to development recommencing if contamination is found.

To protect local air quality, I have imposed a condition requiring the submission of details of the control of dust and emissions during construction and demolition to be approved by the local planning authority and ensuring machinery used in the construction phases complies with emission standards.

To safeguard the biodiversity and nature conservation value of the site, I have imposed a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the Daytime Bat Potential Roost Assessment, [name] and [name]_KT6.

The proposed development is served by a constrained access which would not meet the standard expected under development plan policy. This brings the scheme into conflict with the development plan as a whole. The weight I have given to the conflict with the development plan policy is limited by the fact that although the access is constrained, it is existing and I have not been provided with substantive evidence it has led to significant highway safety issues.

There is an agreed fallback position utilising this access and a high probability that said fallback position would be implemented in the event that I dismiss the appeal. I have found that there would be no differing effect between the appeal scheme and the fallback position with regards to highway safety and the fallback is an important material consideration to which I have attached significant weight.

To conclude, the proposed development would conflict with the development plan but material considerations indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos: Proposed Ground Floor Plan: TP(10)21 Proposed Site Plan: TP(01)05 Rev 1 Existing and Proposed Site Sections TP(12)21 Existing and Proposed Site Sections TP(12)20 [name] and [name](11)20 Proposed Block Plan TP(01)03 Site Location Plan TP(01)01 Existing and [name](11)22 Proposed Basement Floor Plan TP(10)20 Proposed Roof Plan TP(10)22 [name] and [name](11)21

Prior to beneficial occupation of the development to which this permission relates, details of the boundary treatment shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Boundary treatment should be erected in accordance with the approved details prior to first occupation of the development and maintained thereafter.

The Air Source Heat Pump shown on the approved plans shall not be installed until a report has been carried out by a competent acoustic consultant that assesses the likely noise impacts from the Air Source Heat Pump on the occupiers of neighbouring properties, and mitigation measures for the development to reduce these noise impacts to acceptable levels has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The report shall include all calculations and baseline data and be set out so that the Local Planning Authority can fully audit the report and critically analyse the content and recommendations. The measures approved under this condition shall be implemented in their entirety prior to the commencement of the first occupation of the development and retained as such thereafter.

The rating level of the noise determined by the cumulative sound emissions of the plant to which this permission relates shall be at least 5dBA lower than the existing background noise level at any given time of operation. The noise levels shall be measured or predicted 1m externally to any window at the nearest residential façade and the measurements and assessment shall be made according to BS 4142:2014.

Prior to commencement of groundworks (excluding site investigations and demolition), a detailed drainage design, including drawings, supporting calculations, [name] and Drainage Assessment Form shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. This shall include a detailed management plan confirming routine maintenance tasks for all drainage components must also be submitted to demonstrate how the drainage system is to be maintained for the lifetime of the development. The system shall be implemented in full prior to occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted as part of the scheme and thereafter managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details.

In the event that contamination is found (at any time) that was not previously identified, development shall cease and the contamination reported in writing to the local planning authority as soon as is reasonably practicable. An assessment, remediation scheme and verification report shall then be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before development resumes.

The site and building works required to implement the development shall be only carried out between the hours of 08.00 and 18.00 Mondays to Fridays and between 08.00 and 13.00 on Saturdays and not at all on [name] and Sundays.

Prior to the commencement of the development the applicant must submit details of how dust and emissions during construction and demolition are to be controlled. The applicant shall have regard to the [name] on the Control of Dust and Emissions during Construction and Demolition. Such details shall normally include: - An air quality and dust risk assessment - An air quality management plan - Site monitoring - Compliance with the requirements for non-road mobile machinery. See

[name] (NRMM) of net power of 37kW and up to and including 560kW used during the course of the demolition, site preparation and construction phases shall comply with the emission standards as published on the [name] (https://nrmm.london/). Unless it complies with the standards set out on the website, no NRMM shall be on site, at any time,whether in use or not, without the prior written consent of the local planning authority. The developer shall keep an up to date list of all NRMM used during the demolition, site preparation and construction phases of the development on the online register on the NRMM website.

Notwithstanding the submitted Construction Management Plan (update 18.11.2025), no development shall take place (including any works of demolition) until an updated construction management plan or construction method statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to include the following: a) The procedure for loading/unloading of materials at the site; b) The protocol for managing deliveries to one vehicle at a time; c) The protocol for managing vehicles that need to wait for access to the site; d) A well labelled drawing to show the routing plan for construction vehicles accessing or exiting the site via the local or strategic highway network; e) The means of enclosure of the site, including the height (2.4m) of security fencing to be provided; f) Location of any statutory undertaker connections (water, gas, electricity) g) Site plan identifying location of dust suppression and water supplies.

The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the Daytime Bat Potential Roost Assessment (PRA), [name] & [name],Ref: WEc_KT6.

The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the [name] [name]:25052 submitted with the application.

The development to which this permission relates shall be carried out in accordance with the materials specified on the approved plans and on the submitted application form unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. End of Schedule