Download Planning Inspectorate and more Exams Construction in PDF only on Docsity!
Appeal Decisions
Inquiry opened on 8 December 2015
Site visit made on 11 December 2015
by B J Sims BSc(Hons) CEng MICE MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 12 February 2016
Appeal A: APP/K5600/A/13/ 19 South End, London W8 5BU
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 Ms Zipporah Lisle-Mainwaring against the decision of the Council of the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea. The application, Ref PP/13/029 35 , dated 28 May 2013, was refused by notice dated 24 July 2013. The development proposed is change of use from office use Class B1 to residential use Class C3; construction of double storey subterranean extension and replacement of single-glazed windows with double glazed windows to match existing windows. This decision supersedes that issued on 9 July 2014. That decision on the Appeal A was quashed by Order of the High Court.
Appeal B: APP/K5600/A/14/ 19 South End, London W8 5BU
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 Ms Zipporah Lisle-Mainwaring against the decision of the Council of the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea. The application, Ref PP/13/07133, dated 22 November 2013, was refused by notice dated 16 May 2014. The development proposed is demolition of existing building, excavation of new basement, construction of replacement dwelling above and the associated change of use of the land from B8 storage to C3 residential. This decision supersedes that issued on 13 January 2015. That decision on the Appeal B was quashed by Order of the High Court.
Appeal C: APP/K5600/W/15/ 19 South End, London W8 5BU
The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an application for planning permission. The appeal is made by Ms Zipporah Lisle-Mainwaring against the Council of the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea. The application, Ref PP/14/07791, is dated 4 November 2014. The development proposed is demolition of existing building and construction of replacement dwelling above and the associated change of use of the land from B storage to C3 residential.
APP/K5600/W/15/3005733, APP/K5600/W/15/
Appeal D: APP/K5600/W/15/ 19 South End, London W8 5BU
The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an application for planning permission. The appeal is made by Ms Zipporah Lisle-Mainwaring against the Council of the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea. The application Ref PP/14/06107, is dated 21 August 2014. The development proposed is demolition of existing building, excavation of new basement, construction of replacement dwelling above and the associated change of use of the land from B8 storage to C3 residential.
Appeal E: APP/K5600/W/15/ 19 South End, London W8 5BU
The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an application for planning permission. The appeal is made by Ms Zipporah Lisle-Mainwaring against the Council of the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea. The application, Ref PP/15/04649, is dated 22 July 2015. The development proposed is change of use to C3 residential use.
Decisions
- Appeal A is dismissed.
- Appeal B is dismissed.
- Appeal C is allowed and planning permission is granted for demolition of existing building and construction of replacement dwelling above and the associated change of use of the land from B8 storage to C3 residential at 19 South End, London, W8 5BU, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref PP/14/07791, dated 4 November 2014 subject to the conditions set out in Schedule 1 appended to these decisions.
- Appeal D is dismissed.
- Appeal E is allowed and planning permission is granted for change of use to C3 residential use at 19 South End, London, W8 5BU, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref PP/15/04649, dated 22 July 2015, subject to the conditions set out Schedule 2 appended to these decisions.
Applications for Costs
- At the Inquiry applications for costs were made by Ms Zipporah Lisle- Mainwaring against the Council of the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (RBKC) with respect to Appeals C and D. These applications are the subject of separate Decisions.
Procedural Matters
- The Inquiry sat for 4 days on 8-11 December 2015.
- Mr Niall Carroll, owner-occupier of No 18 South End, neighbouring the appeal property, was represented by Counsel at the Inquiry as a Rule 6 party. No
APP/K5600/W/15/3005733, APP/K5600/W/15/
for Communities and Local Government ([2013] EWHC 690 (Admin)), it is not to be regarded as a valid planning obligation. However, the UU is a valid obligation under Section 16 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974, which imposes a less stringent test of validity, and will therefore be enforceable. There is no dispute that this UU accords with adopted Council planning policy regarding car parking, and (while not strictly a material consideration as the UU does not represent a valid planning obligation) would meet the requirements of Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010 (as amended); namely, that the planning obligation it creates would be necessary and directly, fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to any of the developments for which permission is sought in these appeals. The UU is therefore taken into account as material to these decisions.
Summary Description of the Proposed Developments
- In summary, all five appeals propose a change of use to a residential dwelling Class C3 from established commercial use. The established use is agreed by the Appellant and Council now to be Class B8, storage, but formerly Class B1, office. The Rule 6 party dissents from this view and regards the current use still to be Class B1. This matter is considered below under the first main issue.
- Proposal A includes the excavation and construction of a double-storey basement below the existing dwelling and the installation of new windows but no demolition and reconstruction.
- Proposals B and D are identical and include a replacement dwelling also with a new basement.
- Proposal C is for a new dwelling but no basement.
- Proposal E is solely for the change of use to Class C3.
Main Issues
- Notwithstanding that Appeals C, D and E arise from non-determination of the respective applications by the Council, it was accepted by all parties at the Inquiry that the main issues in the determination of the five appeals are those set out below, to be considered having regard to the general presumption in favour of sustainable development promulgated by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF):
21.1 in all the appeals, the current established use of the appeal property,
21.2 in all the appeals, the effect of the proposed change of use in terms of the loss to the area of commercial use,
21.3 in Appeals A, B and D involving the provision of basements, the planning effects of the various proposed works of demolition and formation of basement storeys on road safety and the convenience of residents and visitors,
21.4 in all the appeals, the effects of the various proposals for demolition, change of use and reconstruction of the appeal building on the character or appearance of the Kensington Square CA and the settings
APP/K5600/W/15/3005733, APP/K5600/W/15/
of neighbouring conservation areas, having regard to the statutory duty to consider the desirability of their preservation or enhancement,
21.5 in Appeals A, B, C and D, any other material effects of the proposed developments, including with respect to trees, landscaping and car parking, and
21.6 in all the appeals, on balance, whether any policy conflict or environmental harm due to the proposed developments is outweighed by material considerations or benefits, including with regard to local housing supply.
Reasons
Planning Policy
- Under Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, as highlighted in paragraph 196 of the NPPF, these appeals fall to be determined in accordance with the statutory development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
- The development plan comprises the adopted London Plan 2015, the adopted RBKC Consolidated Local Plan 2015 (CLP) and certain saved policies of the RBKC Unitary Development Plan (UDP).
- Policies 4.2 of the London Plan and saved Policies E12 and E13 of the UDP together encourage the refurbishment and provision of small office and service industry uses in order to consolidate and extend the diverse office market in the capital.
- However, as was accepted by all parties at the Inquiry, the development plan provision most directly relevant to all five appeals is CLP Policy CF5 on the Location of Business Uses, read in the light of Strategic Objective CO2 for Fostering Vitality “by a wide variety of cultural, creative and commercial uses” , and with reference to the related explanatory text.
- The development plan provisions controlling basement construction are contained within CLP Policy CL7 and its supporting text, which are relevant only to Appeals A, B and D. Policy CL7 contains a wide range of criteria to control the scale, form and extent of basements in view of the potential cumulative adverse impact of their construction on the quality of life, traffic management and living conditions within the densely developed and populated Borough.
Class of Use of 19 South End
- The Council accepts, as a matter of common ground with the Appellant, that the appeal site has been in storage use, Class B8, since at least January 2014, when the Council resolved this to be the established use and issued a lawful development certificate (LDC) based on the evidence of inspections by its own officers and the Valuation Office Agency (VOA).
- This LDC is disputed by the Rule 6 party on grounds that the building has been, and remains, in office use Class B1, having merely been stripped out since it was vacated by the last office user in 2011. The allegation is that the claimed Class B8 use has simply been contrived by the Appellant as a means
APP/K5600/W/15/3005733, APP/K5600/W/15/
the Appeal Court case of Staffordshire County Council v Riley and Others [2001] EWCA Civ257 , cited by the Appellants.
- From direct inspection, the practical use of the building did not appear contrived for the purpose of the accompanied site visit and it was clear that the property was occupied by stored items over most of the ground floor and much of the first floor, with some items also kept on the top floor of the three storey building. There was no vestigial office use in evidence to which a partial Class B8 use might have been ancillary. Although not fully occupied by stored material on every floor, the property appeared as a single planning unit demonstrably in storage use.
- The VOA and the Council as reputable public bodies plainly found no ground for non-acceptance of the testimony of the Appellant in connection with the second, successful LDC application. The Appellant was entitled to implement the change of use to Class B8 and it is not appropriate subjectively to interpret her past conduct or anticipate her future actions regarding the appeal property.
- In all the circumstances, on a proper objective assessment, the current established use of the appeal property is to be regarded as storage under Class B8 of the Use Classes Order.
Loss of Current Commercial Use of 19 South End to Residential Use
Policy
- The format of Policy CF5 (and others) is explained in CLP paragraph 29.1.3 in terms that “Each of the planning policies starts with a strategic policy which stands in its own right. Below this are the criteria of how the policy can be complied with, but the list is not exhaustive and addressing all the criteria may not necessarily indicate that a proposal is in conformity with the strategic policy.”
- CLP paragraph 31.3.28 states that “Business uses are considered to be those which fall under Class B of the Use Classes Order, and include office, light industrial and storage uses.”
- CLP paragraph 31.3.32 notes that, “ For industry and warehousing, the forecast is for a small reduction of required stock of just 4,500 square metres”.
- Within Policy CF5 itself, the initial strategic policy, consistent with Strategic Objective CO2, seeks “to ensure that there is a range of business uses …… to allow businesses to grow and thrive ……” , albeit the criteria below the strategic policy relate to offices and light industrial uses and employment zones (Classes B1 and B2) and are silent regarding Class B8 storage uses.
- A substantial part of the Inquiry was taken up with argument as to whether Policy CF5 affords protection to Class B8 in addition to Class B1 uses. It is therefore necessary to consider the meaning of this aspect of Policy CF5, in the light of the respective cases of the main and Rule 6 parties, before reaching any planning judgement on whether the loss of the present commercial use to residential would conflict with its provisions.
APP/K5600/W/15/3005733, APP/K5600/W/15/
- Following such consideration, it is clear that the strategic provision set out at the beginning of Policy CF5 protects a range of business uses as defined by its supporting text as including storage (Class B8). There is nothing in the policy to indicate that the subsequent criteria, only referring specifically to offices, light industry and employment zones, are exhaustive. Given the strategic nature of the opening general provision of the policy, it is appropriate to regard Policy CF5 as also protecting Class B8 use, as a component of business use, where its loss would unacceptably diminish the range of business uses available in the Borough.
- The reverse is argued by the Appellant, in the absence of any specific reference to storage use within Policy CF5 itself, and given that the supporting text forecasts a small reduction in demand in the required stock of industry and warehousing uses. The Appellant also documents a range of recent planning decisions by the Council, as well as a current application under consideration, where the Council has itself taken the view that Policy CF affords no protection to Class B8 uses.
- It is clear from internal Council correspondence, as well as an Issues and Options Paper for partial review of the CLP, also cited by the Appellant [listed document 8.4 paragraph 18] , that there has been, and remains, considerable uncertainty within the Council as to the clarity and effectiveness of its own adopted CLP in this respect. This includes concern that, subsequent to the adoption of the CLP, the size threshold for permitted change of use from Class B1 to B8 has been raised from 235 to 500 square metres. This increases the prospect of more loss of business uses to residential if Policy CF5 fails clearly to protect Class B8. At the same time, there is no evidence that the Council monitors the supply of Class B8 sites specifically.
- Be all that as it may, Policy CF5 must be read objectively in accordance with the language used in its proper context. Authority for that approach is found in the judgment in the case of Tesco Stores Limited v Dundee City Council [2012] UKSC 13 , on which both main parties place reliance. That judgment also makes clear that the Council cannot make the development plan mean whatever it would like it to mean. However, the planning circumstances will have been particular to each of the other cases noted by the Appellant. Moreover, there is nothing to say that the terms of Policy CF5 will have been subject to the same degree of analysis in the determination of those cases as they were in these appeals.
- On the evidence available and for the purpose of determining these appeals, it is appropriate to regard Policy CF5 as protecting the existing Class B8 use of the appeal premises as well as Class B1 to the extent that it might, in the alternative, apply.
Planning Effect
- However, the question as to whether the loss of the present commercial use would conflict with the Policy CF5 in the present case remains to be considered. The Council admits that the loss of the appeal site from Class B to residential use does not necessarily constitute a breach of Policy CF5 and that this remains a matter of planning judgement.
APP/K5600/W/15/3005733, APP/K5600/W/15/
inappropriate reduction in the range of uses available is largely un-quantified and fails to provide strong economic reasons for refusing it.
- To the extent therefore that the present use of the appeal property is for storage Class B8, the proposed change of use in all five appeals is not to be regarded as in conflict with CLP policy CF5.
Fallback Positions
- In the alternative outcome that the loss of Class B8 use were found to be in conflict with Policy CF5, the Appellant would rely on a claimed fallback position that the use of the appeal building could be changed to residential Class C under Class P of the General Permitted Development Order 2015 (GPDO). The Appellant contends that this right could apply to the appeal property once the requisite four-year qualifying period of Class B8 use had expired, no later than January 2018, and before the right expires in April 2018. Leaving aside the very short time for physical change to residential use, it would not have been appropriate to anticipate that turn of events, in case of further changes in planning legislation and circumstances in the interim. Instead, it would have been necessary to determine this aspect of the matter in the light of current circumstances wherein that permitted development right does not apply. Accordingly this potential fallback position would carry minimal weight.
- In the different alternative outcome that the extant use of the appeal property were found to remain in Class B1 as offices, the Council, supported by the Rule 6 party, maintains that refusal would still be justified under Policy CF5. In itself, there is merit in this contention because it is the essentially undisputed evidence of the Council that, properly disregarding hope value of future change to residential use, the appeal property would be viable in office use. Moreover, it would justify protection in terms of Criterion a of Policy CF5, as a medium-sized office development in an accessible area, close to the town centre and not subject any of the exclusions of that criterion. Despite the foregoing finding that the current use of the appeal site is properly to be regarded as Class B8, the Council would further contend that the loss of a building that could potentially revert to Class B1 as permitted development should nevertheless be regarded as a material consideration. For reasons explained above in connection with the issue of the present use class of the site however, such an eventuality cannot properly be anticipated in relation to these appeals. The prospects of reversion to Class B1 and the loss of that use contrary to Policy CF5 accordingly also carry minimal weight in connection with these five appeals.
Basement Construction (Appeals A, B and D)
Policy Criteria
- The relevant CLP Policy CL7 has been subject to unsuccessful challenge in the High Court and was only adopted since the original applications for proposals A, B and D were made. It is accepted by the Appellant that Appeals A, B and D now fall to be considered with reference to Policy CL7, of which, at the start of the Inquiry, the following criteria were germane:
APP/K5600/W/15/3005733, APP/K5600/W/15/
57.1 Criterion a requires the extent of all basements not to exceed 50 per cent of the garden outside the building footprint and to leave a single open area.
57.2 Criterion b requires basements not to comprise more than one storey, generally limited in depth to about 3 to 4 metres from floor to ceiling, such that they cannot be subdivided to create additional floors, but there may be a small allowance for the depth of any swimming pool.
57.3 Criterion k seeks to ensure that traffic and construction activity associated with basement construction does not cause unacceptable harm to pedestrian, cycle, vehicular and road safety or significantly increase traffic congestion or place unreasonable inconvenience on the day to day life of those living, working and visiting nearby. Prospective developers must demonstrate that such impacts will be kept to acceptable levels, taking account of cumulative impacts of other developments. In this connection, a draft Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) is required in conjunction with any planning application involving basement construction and, where permission is granted, a condition will be imposed requiring a full CTMP.
57.4 Criterion l requires noise, vibration and dust to be kept to acceptable levels throughout the works.
57.5 Criterion n requires the basement to be protected from sewer flooding by a suitable pump device.
- During the Inquiry the Council conceded that all three basement proposals would be compliant with Criteria l and n regarding the control of construction noise and potential sewer flooding. There is no countervailing evidence to question those concessions, in particular having regard to a submitted Environment Management Plan and submitted basement drainage pump details.
- The Council also accepts that the proposals are compliant with Criterion a regarding the horizontal extent of the basements below the rear garden area but the Rule 6 party maintains objection on this ground.
Extent of Basement – CL7a
- The extent of all three proposed basements, the same in each of Appeals A, B and D, was variously calculated, before and throughout the Inquiry, as taking up between 47 and 56 per cent of the available garden area. This depends on whether two symmetrical strips of space remaining at the sides of the basement area, including the area of two ventilation louvres, are taken into account.
- Excluding the louvres, the side strips conjoin with a single rectangular area outside the basement footprint at the rear of the plot to take up just 50.8 per cent of the garden area, according to an undisputed computation provided by the Rule 6 party. As a matter of judgement, this is the result logically to be preferred in terms of Criterion a. Given that, in each proposal, the basement structure would be covered over by a substantial depth of soil to recreate an open garden, this marginal degree to which the proposals would fail to comply with the strict terms of Policy CL7a is of little planning consequence.
APP/K5600/W/15/3005733, APP/K5600/W/15/
junction of South End with Ansdell Street. The vehicle swept path diagrams provided to show these manoeuvres do not indicate either a large sewer vent pipe which is situated within the road at the junction or a decorative lamp column occupying a short length of the site frontage. Both of these features would need to be avoided or the lamp column temporarily re-sited. However, the vent pipe is not even shown on the CTMP plan and there is no indication of how the lamp column would be protected.
- Following uncertainty at the Inquiry regarding the size of lorries to be parked at the appeal site frontage, it was accepted on behalf of the Appellant that these would generally be at least 6.8 metres in length. As a result, they would overlap both the appeal site frontage and a parking space, and yellow line parking restrictions, which front the appeal building and the adjacent dwelling at No 18, South End, the home of the Rule 6 party. Lorries collecting spoil for removal would be substantially longer, at 7.8 metres, and would attend for the significant four or five week period of basement excavation, each remaining on site for up to two hours. It is estimated that there would be some 11 lorry visits per day for some 68 weeks of the 18 month overall construction period. Each lorry visit, albeit supervised by a banksman, would involve reversing into position in front of the building.
- During the time that lorries would be parked outside the appeal property, they would project into the road at a point where the width across to the edge of the footway opposite is very constrained, limiting the space for other vehicles to pass. In practice, no vehicle could stand hard against the front wall of the building, because it would impede site access, and would be likely to stand further out into the road than has been assumed. At the formal site visit, the carriageway width at its narrowest, opposite the point where the frontages of Nos 18 and 19 conjoin, was measured and agreed to be only 6.43 metres. Parked construction vehicles could thus potentially reduce the effective width of the road below the requisite three metres for another vehicle to pass safely without mounting the footway.
- Moreover the absence of any footway at the appeal site frontage would also mean that lorries would stand very close to a considerable proportion of the front wall and hall window of No 18, for long periods of the working day during construction. Whereas the parking space in front of No 18 at the frontage is already in regular use, in normal circumstances it is likely to be occupied by cars rather than larger and more obtrusive lorries or vans associated with construction works.
- With these considerations in mind, it is not possible to conclude that the draft CTMP demonstrates that road safety, congestion and potential inconvenience would be satisfactorily addressed during the construction of the basement, with particular regard to the size, manoeuvring and parking of construction vehicles.
- At the Inquiry, in an attempt to respond to the foregoing concerns, certain alternative measures were mooted on behalf of the Appellant, including parking vehicles off-street on the ground slab and the use of smaller vehicles for spoil removal and deliveries. However, such alternative proposals had not been before the Council for public consultation and formal appraisal. They also failed to show, such as by a swept path diagram, how vehicles would manoeuvre in and out of the site in the tight confines of South End. Neither
APP/K5600/W/15/3005733, APP/K5600/W/15/
was there any clear indication of what effect the use of smaller vehicles would have on the number and frequency of vehicle trips and the duration of basement construction or of the construction period as a whole. These suggested options therefore carry very little weight.
- It is recognised that the Council has not been consistent in its responses to the several iterations of the draft CTMPs submitted and that the policy framework has shifted during the life of the three applications and appeals concerned. However, it is the proper role of these decisions to appraise the latest draft version afresh.
- It has to be accepted that, subject to proper supervision of construction vehicles, some traffic disruption is inevitable to facilitate development. For comparison, there has been complete closure of nearby Ansdell Terrace in connection with building works which would not be necessary in South End in the present case.
- Overall however, for the reasons given above, all three proposals in Appeals A B and D are to be considered non-compliant with Criterion k of Policy CL7.
Conclusion on Basement Construction – Appeals A, B and D
- Conflict of the three basement construction proposals of Appeals A, B and D with Criteria b and k of Policy CL7 places them into significant conflict with the strategic Borough-wide aims of CLP Policy CL7 to limit the cumulative adverse environmental impacts of basement construction.
- Even if it were accepted, to give the benefit of any doubt to the Appellant, that non-compliance with Criterion k, in respect of the CTMP, could, in practice, be redressed by planning condition, this objection would continue to stand on the basis of the excessive depth of the basement, contrary to Criterion b.
Conservation Areas
- There is no evidence that, on completion, any of the five proposals for change of use would have any adverse impact on the character of the Kensington Square CA, given there is no current objection to either the present commercial or proposed residential uses in those terms. The same can be said of the construction works in the Appeal A proposal, where the existing building would be retained.
- With respect to Appeals B, C and D, there is no objection to the proposed demolition of the building, which is of no particular architectural merit. It is also undisputed that the replacement dwelling would provide a façade more in keeping with the character of the CA as a whole, whilst in views of the back of the building from the rear of properties within the CA the new construction would exhibit greater visual harmony than the present relatively unattractive assemblage of past additions. As a result, the Appeal B, Appeal C and Appeal D proposals would all result in a degree of enhancement to the character and appearance of the Kensington Square CA. To the extent that the appeal developments would be visible from within neighbouring CAs, it follows that they would not harm their setting.
APP/K5600/W/15/3005733, APP/K5600/W/15/
full details and samples of external finishing materials, window construction and replacement landscaping and tree planting.
Overall Planning Balance and Conclusions on Appeal A
- With respect to CLP Policy CF5, there is no objection to the proposed change of use to residential development, Class C3, whilst the additional dwelling that would result would be a material benefit of the development. In the overall balance however, this benefit would be significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the environmental harm due to the non-compliance of the double storey basement with the Borough-wide strategic requirements of CLP Policy CL7. The development would accordingly conflict with the development plan taken as a whole and is to be regarded as unsustainable. Appeal A accordingly fails.
Overall Planning Balance and Conclusions on Appeals B and D
- With respect to CLP Policy CF5, there is no objection to the proposed change of use to residential development, Class C3, whilst the additional dwelling that would result would be a material benefit of the development. The degree of enhancement of the Kensington Square CA due to the replacement dwelling would be a further material benefit. In the overall balance however, these benefits would be significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the environmental harm due to the non-compliance of the double storey basement with the Borough-wide strategic requirements of CLP Policy CL7. The development, identical in each appeal, would therefore conflict with the development plan taken as a whole and is to be regarded as unsustainable. Appeal B and Appeal D both fail accordingly.
Overall Planning Balance and Conclusions on Appeal C
- With respect to CLP Policy CF5, there is no objection to the proposed change of use to residential development, Class C3, whilst the additional dwelling that would result would be a material benefit of the development. The degree of enhancement of the Kensington Square CA due to the replacement dwelling would also be a further material benefit. The development would accordingly comply with the development plan taken as a whole. Appeal C therefore succeeds in line with the presumption of the NPPF in favour of sustainable development, subject to the conditions discussed above.
Overall Planning Balance and Conclusions on Appeal E
- With respect to CLP Policy CF5, there is no objection to the proposed change of use to residential development, Class C3. In the absence of other material factors for or against the proposal, the development would comply with the development plan taken as a whole. Appeal E therefore succeeds in line with the presumption of the NPPF in favour of sustainable development, subject to the conditions discussed above.
B J Sims
Inspector
APP/K5600/W/15/3005733, APP/K5600/W/15/
APPEARANCES
FOR THE COUNCIL OF THE ROYAL BOROUGH OF KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA:
Mr Andrew Parkinson of Counsel He called Mr W Howe BSc(Hons)
Senior Transport Planner Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Mr J Clack MRICS
Valuer, Frost Meadowcroft Kensington Mr M Lomas BSc(Hons) MPlan
Senior Planning Officer Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
FOR THE APPELLANT - MS Z LISLE-MAINWARING:
Mr Paul Brown of Queens Counsel He called Mr A Hayes BSc(Hons) CEng MISructE
Principal Michael Barclay Partnership LLP
Mr N de Lotbiniere BSc(Hons) MPhil
Head of Planning, Savills London
FOR THE RULE 6 PARTY – MR N CARROLL:
Mr Richard Harwood of Queens Counsel He called Mr N Carroll Rule 6 Party Mr N Abbott BA(Hons) MA MRTPI
Director, London Planning Team WYG Project Management and Technical Consultants
APP/K5600/W/15/3005733, APP/K5600/W/15/
SCHEDULE 1
APPEAL C - PLANNING CONDITIONS
The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.
The development shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the submitted Site Location Plan and plans Series 2844 - 000; 002; 003; 004; 005; 012; 017; 018; 020; 021; 022; 100; 203; 204; 205; 206; 208; 209; 210; 211; 212; 213-1; and 213-2.
The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until cycle parking is provided in accordance with drawing number 2844-203, and so maintained thereafter.
Sample panels of facing brickwork showing the proposed colour, texture, facebond and pointing shall be provided on site, and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the relevant parts of the approved works are commenced, and the sample panels shall be retained on site until the work is completed in accordance with the panels so approved.
Prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved a scheme of landscaping, to include the planting of at least one medium sized tree, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, and the development shall only be carried out in accordance with the details so approved.
All tree and shrub planting forming part of the approved scheme of landscaping approved under condition 5 above shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following the first occupation of the development or the completion of the development whichever is the sooner. Any trees or shrubs which, within a period of five years from the first planting and seeding season referred to above, die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species.
The external windows and doors hereby permitted shall be timber framed and painted, with the windows being slim-profile double glazed, and be so maintained.
The railings hereby approved shall be painted black, and so maintained thereafter.
The roof slopes of the building hereby permitted shall be clad in natural slates, and so maintained thereafter.
The cheeks of the dormer windows shall be clad in lead and be so maintained thereafter.
The dwelling hereby approved shall achieve compliance with optional requirement M4(2) of the building regulations and shall not be occupied until Building Regulations approval has been issued certifying that these criteria have been achieved.
APP/K5600/W/15/3005733, APP/K5600/W/15/
SCHEDULE 2
APPEAL E – PLANNING CONDITIONS
The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.
The development shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on submitted plans series 2844 - 000; 002; 003; 004; 005; 012; 013; 017; 018; 020; 021; and 022.
Prior to the development hereby permitted first being occupied full particulars of cycle parking shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall not be occupied until cycle parking has been provided in accordance with the approved details and shall be so maintained thereafter.
The dwelling hereby approved shall achieve compliance with optional requirement M4(2) of the Building Regulations and shall not be occupied until Building Regulations approval has been issued certifying that these criteria have been achieved.
