Town Planner Pro
Search appeal decisions

Planning appeal decision

Dismissed22 March 20243324702

38 Clarence Street,, Kingston Upon Thames, KT1 1NR

construction of a single storey extension at roof level comprising 5 no. self-contained residential flats (Use Class C3), including provision of new residential access, cycle parking and associated works

Authority
Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
Appeal type
minor · Planning Appeal
Procedure
Written Representations
Development
residential · Minor Dwellings
Inspector
Pattison B

Main issues, as the Inspector framed them

  • whether the proposal represents an acceptable form of development having regard to its flood zone location and the provisions of the development plan
  • whether or not the proposal makes adequate provision for family housing, taking account of the relevant policies of the development plan, the location of the site and the housing needs of the borough
  • the effect of the proposals on the character and appearance of the area, including the effect on the significance and character of 40c Clarence Street
  • the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of future occupiers of the proposal with particular regard to the provision of communal amenity space, and outlook in the event of future development at the adjoining site
  • whether the proposal would provide future occupiers with adequate living conditions having regard to the design and location of the main residential entrance
  • the effect of the proposed car parking provision on highway safety
  • whether the proposal can demonstrate compliance with fire safety standards

What decided it

The proposal's failure to satisfy the Sequential Test for flood risk, combined with the absence of family housing provision and lack of communal amenity space, resulted in harm that significantly and demonstrably outweighed the benefits of housing delivery.

the harm identified in respect of flooding, housing mix and communal amenity space weighed very heavily against the proposals, and the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of housing supply and efficient land use

Framework references: 11, 135, 168, 209

Plan policies cited: Policy DM4, Policy DM10, Policy DM11, Policy DM12, Policy DM13, Policy CS8, Policy D3, Policy D5, Policy D6, Policy D11, Policy D12, Policy HC1, Policy SI12, Policy T6

Judgments cited: Holborn Studios Ltd v The Council of the London Borough of Hackney [2017] EWHC 2823 (Admin)

The main issues and the deciding factor are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.

In the app this decision sits on the map beside every other appeal around it, with the full reasoning summary, the letter held on file, and the case law it applies.