20/01966/FUL
Adams House And 5-8 Dickerage Lane New Malden KT3 3SF
Erection of part-four and part-eight storey mixed use building comprising 641 sqm commercial floorspace (Use Class B1(c)) and 40 self-contained residential units above (15 x one-bedroom, 16 x two-bedroom and 9 x three-bedroom), with associated amenity space, landscaping, car parking, refuse and cycle enclosures (following the demolition of existing buildings on site)
The applicant has failed to demonstrate through the submission of cogent and consistent evidence or robust justification that there is no quantitative or qualitative demand for the existing employment floorspace as offices, or for a range of alternative employment uses such as smaller and affordable offices. The scheme could adversely impact the viability of the LSIS. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Policies CS12, DM17 and DM19 of the Kingston Core Strategy (2012) and Policies E1 and E7 of the London Plan (2021).
The applicant has failed to robustly demonstrate that the site is unsuitable to provide a minimum of 30% of dwellings as 3 or more bedroom units and no robust arguments or evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that a policy compliant provision of 3 or more bedroom units would be unviable. The proposed development would fail to contribute towards meeting the objectively assessed need within the Borough for 3 bedroom units. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Policy DM13 of the Kingston Core Strategy (2012).
The applicant has failed to robustly demonstrate that the scheme would provide the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing contributions contrary to Policies H4 and H5 of the London Plan (2021), Policy DM15 of the Kingston Core Strategy (2012), the Mayor's Affordable Housing and Viability SPG (2017) and the NPPF (2019).
The proposed tall building would conflict with the locational requirements of Policy D9(B) of the London Plan (2021) and it has not been adequately demonstrated that the scale of the proposed tall building or of the proposed design would address the Visual, Environmental, Functional and Cumulative impacts, including microclimate impacts as required by C of Policy D9. The proposal would fail to comply with Policy D9 of the London Plan 2021 and Policy DM10 of the Kingston Core Strategy (2012).
It is considered that the scheme would not make optimal use of the site due to the provision of significantly over sized units and as such, would be contrary to Paragraph 123 of the NPPF 2019 and Policy GG2 of the London Plan 2021.
It has not been demonstrated that the proposed development would conform with the scale, pattern or character of development in the area, or that the design and massing would sit comfortably with the surroundings. The proposed building due to its design, bulk, height and massing would appear incongruous and would not contribute positively to the surrounding townscape and would detract from the character and appearance of the area and the streetscene. The ground floor is overly car dominated and provides poor quality public realm. As such the proposal is contrary to the NPPF (2019), Policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan (2021) and Policies DM10 and DM12 of the Kingston Core Strategy (2012).
It has not been demonstrated that the scheme would provide good quality accommodation, particularly in relation to the layout of internal communal areas, whether the provision of mechanical ventilation and mechanical cooling would compromise internal floor to ceiling heights. Units nos 25 and 31 would have no access to openable windows nor any private outdoor amenity space. The accessibility, useability, comfort levels and deliverability of the communal amenity areas has not been demonstrated. The proposal is contrary to Policies D4 and D6 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy DM10 of the Kingston Core Strategy (2021).
he applicant has failed to submit a robust Fire Statement which addresses the requirements of Policy D12 of the London Plan (2021). It has therefore not been demonstrated that the proposed development would achieve the highest standards of fire safety, contrary to Policy D12 of the London Plan (2021).
It has not been robustly demonstrated that the proposed development would comply with the drainage hierarchy and that the proposed development would not increase flood risk on-site or elsewhere, contrary to Paragraph 163 and 165 of the NPPF (2019), Policy SI 13 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy DM4 of the Kingston Core Strategy (2012).
It has not been demonstrated that the proposal would protect the biodiversity value of the site, or secure biodiversity net-gain. The proposal is therefore contrary to the NPPF, Policy G6 of the London Plan and Policy DM6 of the Core Strategy 2012.
It has not been demonstrated that the minimum Urban Greening Factor target of 0.4 would be achieved on site. The scheme would be contrary to Policy G5 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy DM3 of the Kingston Core Strategy (2012).
It has not been clearly demonstrated that the scheme would achieve the maximum on-site carbon reductions or that the carbon-offset payments would comply with Policy S1 2 of the London Plan. Furthermore, no mechanism to secure the required net-zero carbon offsetting payment has been submitted. The proposal would be contrary to Policy SI 2 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy DM3 of the Kingston Core Strategy (2012).
It has not been demonstrated that the proposed development would not increase on-street car parking stress and would not harm highway safety. Furthermore, no mechanism has been provided to secure a financial contribution towards the funding of a potential future Controlled Parking Zone (or to preclude residents from applying for car parking permits within any such designated zone) or Car Club membership for residents. The proposal would be contrary to paragraph 109 of the NPPF (2019), Policies T4 & T6 of the London Plan and Policies DM9 and DM10 of the Kingston Core Strategy (2012).