Kingston Town Planning Sub-Committee

22 October 2014

Planning Consultation: 22-30 (Gala Bingo Hall) Richmond Road, Kingston Upon Thames, Surrey, KT2 5ED

Report by the Interim Head of Planning & Transport

Purpose:

1. This report seeks the Committee’s views on full planning application 13/13017/FUL for the “Alterations, demolition & rebuilding of eastern annex to provide 7 storey extension, erection of 3 additional floors for 14 flats, use for non-residential institution/ assembly/ leisure use (D1/D2), bar/ restaurant (A3/A4), children's play centre (D1), offices (B1), dance studio (D2),15 serviced apartments, basement car park. Erection of single storey addition to school.”

2. The application is still under consideration and although the period set aside for consultation responses has expired, some may still be received. Further information will be circulated to the Sub-Committee upon the receipt of any further consultation responses. The proposal raises a number of considerations which are set out below in the main body of the report.

Recommendation

It is RECOMMENDED that the Sub-Committee express its views on the application so that the Development Control Committee can consider them when it determines this planning application.

A Register No: 13/13017/FUL

Address: 22-30 (GALA BINGO HALL) RICHMOND ROAD, KINGSTON UPON THAMES, SURREY, KT2 5ED

(c) Crown Copyright. All right reserved. Royal Borough of Kingston 2007. Licence number 100019285.

[Please note that this plan is intended to assist in locating the development it is not the site plan of the proposed development which may have different boundaries. Please refer to the application documents for the proposed site boundaries.]

Ward: Canbury Description of Proposal: Alterations, demolition & rebuilding of

eastern annex to provide 7 storey extension, erection of 3 additional floors for 14 flats, use for non-residential institution/ assembly/ leisure use (D1/D2), bar/ restaurant (A3/A4), children's play centre (D1), offices (B1), dance studio (D2),15 serviced apartments, basement car park. Erection of single storey addition to school.

Plan Type: Full Application Expiry Date: 20/05/2014

Applicant's Plan Nos:

0622_101_LR Received 26/11/2013

0622_102_LR Received 26/11/2013

12-097D_300P1 Received 26/11/2013

12-097R_001 Rev B 2 (6) Structural Report

Received 26/11/2013

2505-PL-001-SITE LOCATION PLAN

Received 26/11/2013

2505-PL-002-BLOCK PLAN AS EXISTING

Received 26/11/2013

2505-PL-010 - BLOCK PLAN AS PROPOSED

Received 26/11/2013

2505-PL-100-GROUND FLOOR PLAN AS EXISTING

Received 26/11/2013

2505-PL-101-1ST FLOOR PLAN AS EXISTING

Received 26/11/2013

2505-PL-102-2ND FLOOR PLAN AS EXISTING

Received 26/11/2013

2505-PL-103-3RD FLOOR PLAN AS EXISTING

Received 26/11/2013

2505-PL-104-4TH FLOOR PLAN AS EXISTING

Received 26/11/2013

2505-PL-105-ROOF PLAN AS EXISTING

Received 26/11/2013

2505-PL-200-NORTHELEVATION AS EXISTING

Received 26/11/2013

2505-PL-201-EAST ELEVATION AS EXISTING

Received 26/11/2013

2505-PL-202-EAST ELEVATION CONTINUED

Received 26/11/2013

2505-PL-203-SOUTH ELEVATION AS EXISTING

Received 26/11/2013

2505-PL-204-WEST ELEVATION AS EXISTING

Received 26/11/2013

2505-PL-205-SECTION AA AS EXISTING

Received 26/11/2013

2505-PL-206 SECTION BB AS EXISTING

Received 26/11/2013

2505-PL407 - 6TH FLOOR AS PROPOSED

Received 26/11/2013

2505-PL408 - ROOF PLAN AS PROPOSED

Received 26/11/2013

2505-PL500 - SECTION AA AS PROPOSED

Received 03/02/2014

2505-PL501 - SECTION BB AS PROPOSED

Received 26/11/2013

2505-PL502 - SECTION DETAILS OF REPAIRS TO HISTORIC ELEMENTS

Received 26/11/2013

2505-PL600 - NORTH and EAST ELEVATIONS AS PROPOSED

Received 26/11/2013

2505-PL601 - SOUTH and WEST ELEVATIONS AS PROPOSED

Received 26/11/2013

2505-PL602 - WEST ELEVATION DETAIL and RELATED MATERIALS

Received 26/11/2013

2505_PL_700 Detail of new structure penetrating existing ceiling

Received 03/02/2014

2505_PL_701 Detail showing new mail junction with exsting ceiling

Received 03/02/2014

2505_PL_702 Detail showing new mail junction to proscenium arch

Received 03/02/2014

2505_PL_704 Proposed junctionwith new wall and rear of balcony

Received 03/02/2014

2505_PL_705 Detail of junction between horizontal cinema wall

Received 03/02/2014

2505_PL_706 section through new window

Received 03/02/2014

4146 - 13.11.22 - Kingston Gala Energy Statement - Ver 4

Received 26/11/2013

4146 13.11.20 Kingston Gala Bespoke BREEAM Pre-Assessment - Ver 3

Received 26/11/2013

4146 13.11.20 Kingston Gala CfSH Pre-Assessment - Ver 3

Received 26/11/2013

4146 13.11.20 Kingston Gala Offices BREEAM Pre-Assessment - Ver 3

Received 26/11/2013

4146 13.11.20 Kingston Gala Part L Compliance Report - Ver 2

Received 26/11/2013

4146 13.11.20 Kingston Gala Restaurant BREEAM Pre-Assessment - Ver 3

Received 26/11/2013

4146 13.11.22 Kingston Gala Sustainability Statement - Ver 4

Received 26/11/2013

A2510 PL-011 [Site Location Plan]

Received 12/08/2014

A2510 PL-106 [Existing 3rd Floor Mezzanine Plan]

Received 12/08/2014

A2510 PL-310 [Ground Floor Plan as Existing Demolitions]

Received 12/08/2014

A2510 PL-311 [1st Floor Plan as Existing Demolitions]

Received 12/08/2014

A2510 PL-312 [2nd Floor Plan as Existing Demolitions]

Received 12/08/2014

A2510 PL-313 [3rd Floor Plan as Existing Demolitions]

Received 12/08/2014

A2510 PL-314 [3rd Floor Mezzanine Plan as Existing Demolitions]

Received 12/08/2014

A2510 PL-316 [Roof Plan as Existing Demolitions]

Received 12/08/2014

A2510 PL-410 [Basement Plan as Proposed]

Received 12/08/2014

A2510 PL-411 [Ground Floor Plan as Proposed]

Received 12/08/2014

A2510 PL-412 [1st Floor Plan as Proposed]

Received 12/08/2014

A2510 PL-413 [2nd Floor Plan as Proposed]

Received 12/08/2014

A2510 PL-414 [3rd Floor Plan Received 12/08/2014

as Proposed]

A2510 PL-415 [4th Floor Plan as Proposed]

Received 12/08/2014

A2510 PL-416 [5th Floor Plan as Proposed]

Received 12/08/2014

BASIC INFORMATION

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012

Development Plan: London Plan July 2011 LDF Core Strategy Adopted April 2012

Policies

LONDON PLAN JULY 2012 LP 3.5 Quality and design of housing development LP 3.8 Housing choice LP 4.5 London’s visitor infrastructure LP 6.1 Strategic approach LP 6.9 Cycling LP 7.4 Local character LP 7.6 Architecture LP 7.8 Heritage assets and archaeology LP 7.9 Heritage-led regeneration LDF CORE STRATEGY CORE POLICIES CS 01 Climate Change Mitigation CS 05 Reducing the Need to Travel CS 06 Sustainable Travel CS 07 Managing Vehicle Use CS 08 Character, Heritage and Design CS 10 Housing Delivery LDF CORE STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT DM01 Sustainable Design and Construction Standards DM08 Sustainable Transport for new Development DM10 Design Requirements for New Developments DM11 Design Approach DM12 Development in Conservation Areas and Affecting Heritage

Assets DM13 Housing Quality and Mix DM18 New Employment Uses

Previous Relevant History

9414 Use as cinema and indoor games hall

Permit 07/04/1972

19856 Change of use of circle area from cinema to bingo and social club

Permit 25/07/1978

2011: Enforcement:

In 2011 the previous owner of the site committed an offence by undertaking works to the Listed Building without consent. This amounted to the demolition of the internal ground floor throughout, which was levelled to rubble. The previous owner received a substantial fine as well as being ordered to pay all of RBKs costs in full. This verdict represented the conclusion of the Council’s actions regarding the Offence, but not the conclusion of its enforcement case which remains open as the building has yet to be restored, either to its pre-Offence condition or to an alternative condition benefiting from Listed Building Consent.

The current owners had agreed an option to purchase the site at the time the previous owner was convicted. Officers made it clear to the current owners that they were purchasing a property with (and therefore the responsibility for) a significant breach of planning control which needed to be fully addressed. The Council has the option at any time to serve a Listed Building Enforcement Notice to specify repairs that must be undertaken. Compliance would be a significant and costly undertaking for the owner and it would be difficult for RBK to secure compliance while the owner can show they are making genuine attempts to address the condition of the building through redevelopment. Enforcement action has therefore been placed on hold pending the outcome of the owner’s redevelopment plans. The Council has been asked to assess whether the building is deteriorating in the interim period, and has undertaken several surveys with Building Control Inspectors as a result. There has been no evidence that the building is deteriorating significantly, though the owner has been advised to weather-proof the property.

Consultations

1. Site and Press notice displayed. 970 neighbours consulted. 2. The Cinema Theatres Association: Object strongly to the proposals to

subdivide the main auditorium, but have no concerns with apartments and offices above and behind the cinema. There is clearly a need for a large auditorium in Kingston. Onus is on applicant to prove there are no other viable uses that do not lead to harmful interventions as proposed.

3. The Theatres Trust: objects to the application in principle because the excessive and insensitive internal subdivision and reuse of the existing building will damage the architectural integrity and significance of the cinema. No objection to the concept of office and residential development being located behind and above the former cinema building. Welcome the proposed restoration and repair of the damage caused to the proscenium arch and plaster detail and the effort to find uses that retain public access to the building, including the new cinemas. The building will be significantly altered and permanently damaged by the subdivision of the auditorium for the new uses and this will never be reversed. The new cinemas will be in located in separate boxes and the design does not incorporate the decorative roof. No details provided regarding the location of toilet facilities, projection booths or cinema entrances. The proscenium arch will be the bar/ restaurant's main feature, but due the subdivision it will not be possible to appreciate the full scale of the Art Deco features.

4. Twentieth Century Society: Object: The NPPF emphasises the importance of conserving listed buildings. Subdividing the historic double height space of

this 1930s building both horizontally and vertically will significantly harm the architectural significance of this building. The scheme will cause damage to the special interest of this building and is irreversible. In addition important architectural details such as the original decorative plasterwork will no longer be visible, which increases the overall harmful impact of the proposed subdivision. We do not believe that this scheme pays due regard to the special interest of this grade II listed building as required by NPPF policy. In terms of viability, we remain unconvinced that the proposal presented is the only solution for re-using and converting this listed building. Overall we consider the cost and damage to the architectural and historical significance of this building to be simply too high. We urge the local planning authority to refuse listed building consent and planning permission.

5. English Heritage (Historic Buildings): No response received. 6. English Heritage (Archaeology): The development could have some impact

on archaeological remains. Conditions are required to ensure further information is provided to confirm whether archaeological remains exist on site or whether they have been truncated by quarrying or the building of the cinema building and ensure that the post investigation assessment has been carried out and that building recording takes place.

7. Environment Agency; No objection. Flood risk assessment should consider flood risk from Hogsmill and make it resilient to flooding from this source. A condition is recommended regarding a flood evacuation plan. Sustainable Drainage Systems should be utilised and the applicant should demonstrate how the principles of SuDS could be applied to the development.

8. Thames Water: Recommend conditions/ informatives are attached to any permission granted regarding surface water drainage, impact piling, installation of fat traps and minimum water pressure.

9. Designing Out Crime Officer: Entry to residential units and serviced apartments should have their own separate entrances. A zoned fob controlled system is recommended. Control access to cycle parking and basement car park. CCTV should be fitted. Secured By Design principles should be incorporated.

10. Housing: Developments of 10 units or more require 50% affordable housing. None is proposed and the applicant has sought to justify this through a financial appraisal. This should be independently assessed. The applicant should also assess the viability of providing residential housing in place of serviced apartments and consider providing more units/ a higher proportion of 3 bedroom units. Two cores should be provided to reduce the number of flats served by each core to no more than 8 to accord with the Mayor of London's Housing SPG. The proposed serviced apartments are small when compared to the recommended space standards for residential units.

11. Environmental Health: No objection. Acoustic report considers impact on noise to residential occupiers. Measures to protect noise environment of proposed residential properties should be secured by condition, in particular to ensure no noise disturbance from cinema, dance hall, restaurant/ bar and from traffic noise. Conditions required regarding plant noise and hours of operation of commercial uses and deliveries/ servicing. Conditions required regarding proposed lighting and contamination. Construction to be in accordance with submitted Energy Statement to reduce impact on air quality in Air Quality Management Area. Condition required to reduce release of dust, etc..

12. Carbon Reduction and Sustainability Officer: 25.75% CO2 emissions reduction does not meet the London Plan's 40% target, but given that this is a

listed building, which limits what can be achieved this is acceptable and will be partly achieved through the installation of air source heatpumps, solar PV panels and a CHP system. Need to show where solar PVs are proposed to ensure visual acceptability and maximisation of emissions reduction target. Code Level 4 for the residential units and BREEAM Excellent for the cinema, children's play area, office space and restaurant are proposed, which although less than Code Level 5 and BREEAM Outstanding is considered acceptable given the site constraints. Conditions are required to secure this. There are no heat networks for the proposed development to connect to.

13. Kingston Police Station Licensing: To reduce impact on residential amenities of surrounding occupiers suggest no use of commercial premises between midnight and 6am, except for cinema which could operate between 1am and 6am.

14. Network Rail: No comments. 15. Kingston Upon Thames Society: Support as the developer intends to reinstate

as far as possible, the art deco interior and look forward to the exterior, which is in an appalling condition, being restored to its former glory. Understand that the provision of flats is necessary to pay for the restoration work and are satisfied that the overall appearance will not be prejudiced.

16. Cinema Manager at Olympic Studios Barnes: Wasted opportunity. Support comments of the Cinema Theatres Association.

17. Syrox Emedia: part of proposals impact on our useable space and parking/ access areas. Noise/disturbance from construction to our offices.

18. Burrell Foley Fischer: Comments on the proposed 3 screen cinema: The proposal to subdivide the balcony to create 3 screens would be harmful to the architectural and historical significance of the former cinema auditorium. It would not result in a cinema that would meet the needs of a modern cinema operator and the expectations of a modern cinema going audience with regard to screen size and viewing experience.

The restricted cinema entrance proposed on Richmond Road and poor presence of the cinema lobby, which provides limited intervisibility with the street, would be to the detriment of attracting cinema audiences.

19. Petition: 925 signatures: Object to partial demolition/ internal subdivision until an impartial assessor has produced a report on the viability of the building once restored, including consideration of case studies of comparable buildings operating elsewhere.

20. 81 objections: 1) Division of wonderful and rare auditorium unacceptable. Detrimental

impact of supporting columns for support of the residential accommodation on the listed auditorium. Auditorium of this size would be viable in Kingston and is needed as a performing arts, conference venue, community arts centre or music venue. No independent viability study done to assess its loss.

2) Not good location for this mix of uses which could be provided in other locations within the town centre. Unconvinced that cinema, restaurants, offices are viable in this location given existence of these uses close by. Lack of toilet provision, sales space or means of escape for cinema. Leisure businesses that the town centre doesn't have would be more useful. No community benefit proposed

3) External changes would result in unacceptable mass and is out of character with the existing Listed Building and would have a detrimental impact on the Kingston skyline.

4) Underground car park could cause subsidence to a listed building and

could be flooded 5) Lack of affordable housing 6) Noise/ congestion impact on residential areas. 7) Narrow streets would provide poor pedestrian access. 8) Increase in traffic for one way system, increased visitor parking to

surrounding streets and lack of parking for proposal. 9) No assessment of bats. 10) Lack of Section 106 contributions. 11) Green space should be added. 12) Some accept external changes and welcome addition to Educare

school. Some concern that site could change use to dancing/drinking/nightclub without requiring a further change of use. If any changes proposed from current proposal, re-consultation should take place with local residents and those who have expressed an interest in this application.

21. 2 Comments: Suggestion of sports centre with a spa/pool on top or anything that would make it into a nice building. Site should be used to support local artists, facilities for which are currently limited in Kingston

22. 12 letters of support: 1) Brings derelict building into use 2) Positive impact on the quality of public realm in this part of North

Kingston 3) An arts cinema would be an asset to the area 4) No demand for alternative suggestion of major cinema hall 5) Unlikely to cause traffic or noise disturbance in the immediate

neighbourhood 6) This proposal reflects views of local residents 7) Proposal should not include a nightclub

23. Reconsultation undertaken on amendments: 24. Kingston Police Station Licensing: To reduce impact on residential amenities

of surrounding occupiers suggest no use of commercial premises between midnight and 6am.

25. Ecology Officer: Credits have been awarded in the BREAAM assessment for the Ecology section, yet I can see no Ecology Report in the documents list. I therefore cannot agree that the ecology of the site has been investigated and that these credits have been correctly awarded until I am able to see the report. In any even I see that not all the available credits have been awarded and that more could be done for this section.

26. Carbon Reduction and Sustainability Officer: The roof plans indicate that there could be greater scope for Solar PV panels to target further emissions reduction. Therefore it would be helpful to understand how the sizing of the proposed Solar PV array was decided upon and if there is scope for greater capacity to increase the emissions reduction rate.

27. Thames Water: Conditions recommended regarding sewers, surface water drainage, impact piling, provision of a fat trap and groundwater discharge. No objection regarding water infrastructure capacity. Informative to be added water pressure.

28. English Heritage (Historic Buildings): Although the interior has been damaged by a combination of neglect and unauthorised works, it still retains much original work of special interest and high significance. Although the roof extensions have an impact in townscape terms, main concern is the works to the auditorium. Welcome the retention of the balcony space without the previously proposed 'boxes', but remain concerned by its separation from the

main auditorium, especially as the use of the balcony, and therefore the necessity of separating it off, has not been established. I also remain very concerned over the proposed vertical sub-division of the auditorium to provide the restaurant, and although I appreciate that some of the work is reversible, it constitutes substantial harm to the listed building.

29. These proposals should be assessed under the terms of the NPPF paragraph 133 i.e. where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to the significance of the listed building. For this harm to be acceptable, and for the LPA to grant consent, it should be demonstrated that it is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm, or that the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site and that no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation and that its conservation by some charitable body or similar is demonstrably not possible, and that the harm is outweighed by bringing the building back into use.

30. The revised application has been supported by valuation evidence. It appears that the need for sub-division is being driven to some extent by a high purchase price paid by the applicant, which is not acceptable. The case is not made in valuation terms for the works. In terms of the public benefits offered by the scheme, there is benefit in the building being brought back into use after many years of being vacant, and that the children's play centre and dance studio may bring value to the community. However, I remain unconvinced that they are of sufficient weight to justify the damage caused to the listed building by this scheme.

31. The Cinema Theatre Association: Object: The costs associated with the reinstatement of the auditorium should not be included in any costs within the viability report. Various potentially interested parties have been put off due to the costs associated with the very substantial repair works and it has not been clear to them that they would be able to move into a functional, clean, watertight auditorium space. We have not been made aware of the sum allocated to reconstitution works and current ownership. We cannot support this scheme that is highly insensitive to the historic fabric and does not justify the irreversible changes and unsuitable use options. The works proposed to the auditorium and historic interior generally, including restaurant mezzanines, kitchen and the children’s play area beyond the balcony edge are too invasive and the use of the balcony remains unresolved and empty.

32. The Theatres Trust: Object: This proposal will cause substantial harm and will damage the architectural importance of Robert Cromie’s Grade II listed cinema building. The amended plans continue to significantly alter and damage the auditorium by splitting it into three separate units which will not be reversed and represents substantial harm to the heritage asset. When purchasing the building, the new owner took on the responsibility of rectifying the damage made when the illegal works were undertaken by the previous owner. While we understand that any new use must be viable, the cost of the rectification work needs to be considered separately and should not be used as justification to allow the insensitive subdivision. There are other more sensitive uses that would allow for the restoration of the auditorium’s volume, form and features while still enabling the proposed office extension to the rear and additional residential storeys located above the former cinema building. Of considerable concern is that the balcony area is to be left without a function (remaining D1/D2) and that the design has therefore not considered or safeguarded the balcony space for a new use in the future. The enclosed stairs and lifts for the restaurant awkwardly jut into this space, compromising

how it could be used in the future, potentially as a cinema, theatre, church or conference facility. While these plans now propose to retain the decorative plaster work on the roof and walls, and the connection and use of the original foyer, amenities such as toilets are not identified, making it difficult to determine the impact of the development on the historic fabric of the building. The front section of the auditorium continues to be subdivided into a three level restaurant and bar incorporating the proscenium arch as its main feature. We remain concerned that the two mezzanine levels spoil the integrity of the double height space of the auditorium and the theatrical character of the premise and splitting its volume will prevent customers appreciating the full scale of the building.

33. English Heritage (archaeology): reiterate previous comments. 34. Environment Agency: reiterate previous comments. 35. Kingston Upon Thames Society: Welcome the intention to restore the main

facade and reinstate as far as possible the art deco interior, including retaining the upper auditorium as a single coherent space. A condition should be imposed to ensure that the restored cinema is provided. The proposed mix of uses are appropriate for the area. Would prefer that the very visible roof extension was not proposed, however, accept that the residential element is needed to make the scheme financially viable, so reluctantly accept this element. Pleased that the proposed units are significantly larger than minimum sizes.

36. Additional neighbour objections: Impact on noise, traffic and school/ healthcare facilities

37. 1 comment: Support any proposal that supports preservation of the buildings that will not hide them from the public, as far as possible.

Site and Surroundings

38. Site area is 2014sqm. The maximum dimensions of the site are 72m width by maximum 48m depth. The Richmond Road frontage is 51m and the Canbury Park Road frontage is 19m. The site contains a Grade II listed building. It was originally built as a cinema and was used as a bingo hall from the 1970s to 2010. The building has been largely vacant since 2010, although the dance studio currently occupies the first floor level on the southern side of the building.

39. The site is located within, but on the edge of, Kingston Town Centre. The Richmond Road frontage is designated as an "other shopping frontage". The site is located within flood zone 2 (medium probability) with the south-western corner falling within flood zone 3 (high probability). The site is located in an area of archaeological significance. The site is within the K+20 Action Area Plan area. The site is within a Key View from the Thatched house Lodge in Richmond Park to All Saints Church. The site is within an area of excellent public transport linkages (PTAL rating of 6).

40. The building fronts Richmond Road to its west, Cowleaze Road to its north and Canbury Park Road to its south. Immediately to the north of the site, attached to the building, is a 5/ 6 storey building including a ground floor estate agents and residential flats above. To the north of Cowleaze Road is a 3/ 4 storey building including a retail shop at ground floor with residential flats above. To the east of this site adjacent to Cowleaze Road is a two storey plus roof school site (Educare). To the south-east of the site attached to the buildings eastern elevation is a 5-6 storey building used as offices. To the east of this site adjacent to Canbury Park Road and Elm Crescent is the two to three storey Canbury Business Park including the three storey Mitre House which is used as offices and fronts Canbury Park Road. To the south of the application site are two storey Victorian buildings including a pub, commercial units and a terrace of residential properties. To the west of the site is a terrace of two storey buildings, all with commercial uses at ground floor, Sopwith way, a three lane carriageway which is part of the Kingston gyratory and Regents Court, which is a four storey residential block with ground floor commercial unit fronting Richmond Road. To the south of this is Kingston train station.

Proposal

41. Alterations, demolition & rebuilding of eastern annex to provide 7 storey extension for 15 serviced apartments (C1 Hotel use) and 494sqm of offices (B1 use). Erection of 3 additional floors for 14 flats (1 No. 1 bedroom flat, 10 No. 2 bedroom flats, 2 No. 3 bedroom flats and 1 No. 6 bedroom flat). All include terraces. Materials include white render, glass rainscreen, aluminium framed sliding doors and zinc clad balcony fascia and canopy over doors. Elevational alterations to southern elevation to include new large square window and “REGAL” lettering above. Use of main 989sqm auditorium for non-residential institution/ assembly/ leisure uses (D1/D2), which include: D1 uses: a place of worship, law court, non-residential education and training centre, a museum, library, art gallery/ exhibition space or church hall; D2 uses: Cinema, music, concert hall, bingo and dance hall. Use of proscenium arch and front stalls plus proposed mezzanine levels on ground to second floor as 682sqm bar/ restaurant(A3/A4), use of part of ground floor as 499sqm children's play centre (D1 use), continued use of part of second floor as 312sqm dance studio(D2), as existing. Provision of ramp to access proposed basement car park containing 18 parking spaces, plant, refuse and recycling areas and storage for 12 bicycles. Erection of single storey brick-built addition to school in association with outside play area.

42. The following amendments have been received:

43. 1) Amendment to basement site plan; 2) 3rd floor mezzanine added for existing and proposed building; 3) Incorporation of revised structural design which removes supporting columns from auditorium area; 4) Reconfiguration of proposed restaurant mezzanine levels to open up views of the space and heritage features; 5) change of one floor of office space to additional floor of serviced apartments and change to layout of serviced apartments to provide total of 15; 6) Retention of decorative curved rear wall of auditorium; 7) Removal of proposed cinema use and associated boxes and retention of

auditorium balcony area as a single space which could be used for a range of D1/D2 ( non-residential institution/ assembly and leisure uses) to be accessed from retained historic cinema entrance lobby; 8) Reconfiguration of children’s play space area/ entrance; 9) Changes to vertical circulation on all floors 10) Change to proposed residential entrance lobby; 11) Introduction of lightwell adjacent to 32 Richmond Road.

Assessment

The main considerations material to the determination of this application are:

• Principle of Proposed Development

• Impact on Character of Listed Building and Area

• Impact on Neighbour’s Residential Amenity

• Highways and Parking

• Trees

• Legal Agreements

• Sustainability

• Other Material Considerations

Principle of Proposed Development

44. In terms of the loss of the existing use and the proposed range of uses, these will be addressed in the following paragraphs. The issue of the extension, alterations and refurbishment of the listed building is a fundamental issue for this application and will be considered in the next section regarding the impact on the listed building and character of the area.

45. K+20 AAP Character Area 10 states that one of its objectives is the “Retention and enhancement of the listed Gala Bingo Hall for leisure/ entertainment use”. Policy K6 of the K+20 AAP seeks to enhance or diversify the range of arts, culture, entertainment, leisure and recreational activities. The previous use as a bingo hall and current use as a dance studio are community facilities. Policy DM24 states that the Council will resist the net loss of community facilities unless there is evidence to suggest the facility is no longer needed; where appropriate, it has been vacant and marketed for a community use without success, or; it can be re-provided elsewhere or in a different way. The amount of existing floorspace, all of which is vacant D2 use class floorspace, is 4230sqm. The proposed community floorspace to replace this is a 312sqm dance hall, 499qm kids play area, 1370 unspecified D1/D2 use and 69sqm school classroom making a total of 2250sqm. Although much of the existing community floorspace has been unused for some time, this represents a loss of potential community floorspace of 1980sqm. Within the building are also proposed 682sqm of restaurant space, 521sqm of offices and 631 sqm of serviced apartments making a total of 1834sqm in other non-residential uses. The applicant has advised that the property has been previously marketed and the main interest was from religious groups and a nightclub operator. There was no significant interest from any other leisure operators for alternative leisure uses. The previous purchaser bought this site for use as a late night venue, although it was never used as such. An independent viability assessment has been undertaken and one of its conclusions is that the reinstatement of the auditorium would not be viable as one use.

46. Education facilities are community facilities. Policy CS16 supports the provision of new facilities of appropriate size and scale in accessible locations, such as Kingston Town Centre. The 69sqm additional classroom would provide additional school facilities for the private school currently operating on this site.

47. Policy DM22 states that regarding design for safety, the Council will assess development proposals based on b) size of venue, opening hours, location of premises and proposed crime prevention measures. The Bingo Hall use falls within use class D2, which includes cinemas, music and concert halls, bingo and dance halls (but not night clubs), swimming baths, skating rinks, gymnasiums or area for indoor or outdoor sports and recreations (except for motor sports, or where firearms are used). The building could, subject to the practicalities of such a use in the building, be used for any of those uses without planning permission. The proposal reduces the maximum size that one use could occupy in the venue whilst providing a mix of town centre uses. The Designing Out Crime Officer has commented as follows: Entry to residential units and serviced apartments

should have their own separate entrances. A zoned fob controlled system is recommended. Access to cycle parking and basement car park should be controlled. CCTV should be fitted. Secured By Design principles should be incorporated.

48. Policy CS11 states that where appropriate, the Council will support the: d) provision of flexible business space to meet the diverse needs of start up, micro, small and medium sized enterprises. Policy DM18 states that the Council will consider applications for new employment development (of an appropriate scale) in designated employment locations favourably. Kingston Town Centre is a designated employment location. 494sqm of serviced office space is proposed for small start up businesses.

49. Policy CS11 states that with its partners, the Council will promote tourism including appropriate infrastructure. Paragraph 6.120 states that in accordance with the Borough’s Cultural Strategy and regional guidance, the Council will promote tourism through a range of measures, including new and improved visitor accommodation and attractions, especially in Kingston Town Centre and at Chessington World of Adventures, which will help to maximize the economic, social and educational benefits of tourism and help diversify the local economy. Policy K6 of the K+20 AAP states that hotel proposals will be considered in Kingston Town Centre on their merits against relevant policies. 15 serviced apartments ranging in size from 30sqm to 63 sqm are proposed as part of the development and would provide self- catering hotel accommodation within the C1 (Hotel) Use Class.

50. Policy CS10 seeks to take advantage of opportunities to deliver new housing with the current target to achieve 375 new units a year. The site is located in a mixed use/residential area within Kingston Town Centre, although close to the edge of the town centre. Policy K7 of the K+20 AAP states that provision is made for around 1000 new homes to be built in the town centre over the period 2006-2020 as part of mixed use development to meet a range of housing needs, including private and affordable housing with a range of flat sizes.

51. Policy CS10 seeks to maximise the delivery of affordable housing. Policy DM15 requires 50% of the units to be provided as affordable housing and proposals departing from these requirements will be expected to justify any lower provision through the submission of a financial appraisal. No affordable housing is proposed, however, a financial viability assessment has been submitted to justify this. This is being assessed by an independent consultant to ascertain whether the development cannot support any affordable housing. This will be required before the application is determined. An update will be provided if this assessment is received prior to the committee meeting.

52. Policy 3.4 of the London Plan, taking into account local context and character and public transport capacity, seeks to optimise housing output for different types of location within the relevant density range. The site has a Public Transport Accessibility Level of 6 (Very good to Excellent) and is a Central location. The London Plan’s density range for a site with these characteristics is 650-1100 habitable rooms per hectare and 140-290 units per hectare (for schemes with 3.8- 4.6 habitable rooms per unit). The proposed habitable rooms per hectare is calculated as 703 habitable

rooms per hectare and 179 units per hectare. The density of the scheme would therefore be within the density range within the London Plan.

53. Policy DM13 states that housing developments should incorporate a mix of unit sizes and provide a minimum of 30% of dwellings as 3 or more bedroom units, unless it can be robustly demonstrated that this would be unsuitable or unviable. 3 out of 14 units would be 3 bed units or more, which represents only 21%. The proposal would not therefore comply with this policy, although one of the 2 bedroom units also includes a separate office and could be used as a 3 bedroom unit. The applicant’s justification for this is that the value from the residential accommodation should be maximised to allow for the restoration and bringing back into use of the listed building.

54. Policy DM13 states that the Council will expect proposals for new residential development to accord with London Plan policies, demonstrating that the scheme has been designed to provide adequate internal space appropriate to the intended number of occupants. All proposed units exceed the London Plan minimum size standards for all unit types in accordance with Policy DM13.

55. None of the units would face solely north. The residential accommodation would be at a level that would be above adjoining buildings and would therefore benefit from an open outlook and view of the sky providing a good standard of accommodation in terms of light, outlook and privacy. The residential accommodation would need to be designed to provide a good standard of internal noise environment.

56. Policy DM13 states that appropriate amenity and play space shall be provided. Policy Guidance 13 of the Residential Design SPD states that 10sqm of private amenity space should be provided per flat plus 1sqm per additional occupant. A minimum of 17sqm and maximum of 198sqm is proposed for each flat in the form of terraces, with each flat having amenity space that exceeds the minimum requirement.

57. Policy Guidance 14 of the Residential Design SPD states that 50sqm of communal amenity space should be provided in addition. However, none is proposed. A total of 767sqm of private amenity space is proposed. The policy generates a requirement of 204sqm of private amenity space and 50sqm of communal amenity space. The proposed amount of communal amenity space would therefore not be in accordance with policy, however, the amount of amenity space provided significantly exceeds the total amount required by policy.

The majority of the site is located within Flood Zone 2 (medium probability) with a small part of the site on the south-western side of the site located in Flood Zone 3. Policy DM4 requires a Flood Risk Assessment for all new development in Flood zones 2 and 3. The Environment Agency raise no objection but state that the Flood Risk Assessment should consider flood risk from the Hogsmill and make it resilient to flooding from this source. They have also stated that Sustainable Drainage Systems should be utilised and the applicant should demonstrate how the principles of SuDS could be applied to the development. The applicant has stated that due to the introduction of the basement, the SuDS options are limited, however, the applicant would be willing to accept planning conditions regarding SuDS

options and flood resistant/ resilient measures.

Impact on Character and Appearance of Listed Building and Area

58. The building on the site is a Grade 2 Listed Building (listed in 1993) and is a rare example of an Art Deco cinema from the 1930s designed by Robert Cromie. Policy DM12 states that the Council will b) preserve or enhance the existing heritage assets of the Borough through the promotion of high quality design and a focus on heritage-led regeneration; and c) allow alterations which preserve or enhance the established character and architectural interest of a heritage asset, its fabric or its setting; d) ensure that development proposals affecting historic assets will use high quality materials and design features which incorporate or complement those of the host building or the immediate area. Policy DM10 states that development proposals will be required to incorporate principles of good design. The proposed development proposes the restoration and subdivision of this existing building into a number of different uses including retaining many of its historic features and enhancing the state of the existing building which requires a significant amount of work and money to bring it up to a useable standard. The addition of three storeys of residential accommodation would be a significant change to the external appearance of the Listed Building, however, this part of the development would pay for the proposed internal and external restoration and bringing back into use of the existing building. The three storey extension is stepped which would reduce the impact of the development particularly when viewed from close range. The extension would be visible in longer distance views including from the panoramic view from Thatched House Lodge in Richmond Park. The insertion of a large square window and REGAL sign which will replace the brick elevation and small windows would change the appearance of this elevation in particular, which will be visible from the train line and the town centre beyond.

Impact on Neighbours’ Residential Amenity

59. Policy DM10 states that development proposals should have regard to the amenities of occupants and neighbours, including in terms of privacy, outlook, sunlight/daylight, avoidance of visual intrusion and noise and disturbance.

60. Policy Guidance 16 of the Council’s Residential Design SPD states that a separation distance of no less than 21m shall normally be maintained between facing windows of habitable rooms. In general the proposals would be located on the other side of roads from surrounding residential properties. The distance from the existing building to the buildings on the other side of Canbury Park Road and Cowleaze Road is 13m. Windows in the existing and adjacent buildings already directly face existing buildings on the other side of these roads. The additional residential accommodation would not be closer to the surrounding properties than the existing windows and would be at a higher level than the surrounding properties. Terraces would be created at the southern end of the building fronting Canbury Park Road, however, these would also be higher than the surrounding properties. A large square window is proposed at first floor to third floor level in the south facing Canbury Park Road elevation

which would be opposite the commercial buildings at the western end of Canbury Park Road. Windows are proposed into the lightwell facing the attached flats at 32-34 Richmond Road from 1st to 6th floors. All of these light circulation space and could therefore be obscure glazed and fixed shut to avoid a detrimental impact on the privacy of the adjoining flats.

61. In terms of impact on sunlight/daylight the greatest impact will be to the bedroom windows adjacent to the lightwell at 32-34 Richmond Road. These windows take much of their light from across the application site. The applicants have proposed to mirror the lightwell to improve the relationship beyond that previously proposed. The proposal would result in the loss of all sunlight to these bedrooms and 59 to 93% of daylight. The Building Research Establishment’s guidelines- Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight states that in most circumstances a loss of 20% is considered to be acceptable, however, where windows are taking much of their light from a neighbouring site ‘a mirror image’ building of the same height and size, an equal distance away on the other side of the boundary could be an acceptable approach. The proposed development broadly follows this approach would be higher than the adjoining existing development, however, it should be borne in mind that the affected bedroom windows take almost all their light from across this site and that all of the affected flats also have open aspects fronting onto Cowleaze Road from other windows. In respect of 2-10 Canbury Park Road, there would be no significant impact on sunlight/daylight to these houses. Regent’s Court: would experience a modest loss of daylight, but levels would still be above the level in excess of that recommended by the BRE guidelines, and would experience a modest loss of sunlight. There would be some loss of daylight to properties opposite in Richmond Road, most being below 20%, although three windows would experience a greater loss but up to a maximum loss of 21.8%. There would be a greater loss of daylight to Clarendon House, on the corner of Richmond Road and Cowleaze Road up to a maximum of 36% loss of daylight and some loss of sunlight. Although most windows would have a loss less than 20% of summer sunlight, the impact on the lower angle winter sunlight would be more significant. 3 windows of 5-11 Cowleaze Road would experience losses of daylight greater than 20%, including losses of 34% and 42%, and 2 windows would experience losses of sunlight greater than 20%, including losses of 29% and 32%. The greatest loss of daylight to windows would occur to rooms which are also served by other windows. The impact on sunlight/daylight to the adjoining Educare school would not be significant.

62. There would be some impact on outlook to surrounding properties, although this would tend to be more significant for those properties that have a view of the Richmond Road frontage, as the extensions would be above the building readily seen from Canbury Park Road and Cowleaze Road.

63. The existing building could be used for a variety of existing uses which could lead to some noise/ disturbance. The Council’s Environmental Health Officer has commented that measures to protect noise environment of proposed residential properties should be secured by condition, in particular to ensure no noise disturbance from cinema, dance hall, restaurant/ bar and from traffic noise. Conditions also suggested regarding plant noise and hours of operation of commercial uses and deliveries/ servicing.

Highways & Parking

64. Policy DM10 states that development proposals should have regard to local traffic conditions and highway safety and ensure that they are not adversely affected. Policy DM9 states that new development should not contribute to congestion or compromise highway safety. Policy CS7 states that car use should be managed to ensure sustainability, road safety and reduce congestion, including car club schemes and the provision of electric vehicle charging points and managing on and off-street parking provision to promote sustainability and residential amenity. Policy DM8 states that sustainable transport will be supported and promoted including implementation of a Travel Plan and prioritising the access needs of pedestrians and cyclists. Policy DM9 and the London Plan, as referenced in the Sustainable Transport SPD, state maximum residential parking standards for 3 bedroom units is 1 to 1.5 spaces and for 1-2 bedroom units is less than 1 per unit. The London Plan also states that all developments in areas of good public transport accessibility should aim for significantly less than 1 space per unit. A basement car park is proposed with 18 parking spaces accessed from a ramp from Cowleaze Road. Servicing would take place from the existing servicing bays in Canbury Park Road and Cowleaze Road.

Trees

65. There are no trees adjacent to or affected by this development.

Legal Agreements

66. In the event of an approval, in accordance with the Council’s SPD ‘Planning Obligations’ the application would be subject to a legal agreement covering the following. The results of the independent viability assessment have now been finalized and circulated to English Heritage, Cinema Theatres Association, Theatres Trust and the Twentieth Century Society and the applicants have indicated that they propose to agree to these Heads of Terms and associated payments, although this is still being discussed:

i. An educational contribution of £3900 per 2 bedroom unit and £6500 per 3 bedroom unit and £9100 per 4+ bed unit providing a total of £61100;

ii. A health/social care contribution of £1100 per 2 bedroom unit, £1500 per 3 bedroom and £2000 per 4+ bedroom unit providing a total of £16700;

iii. A leisure/culture/community contribution of £450 per 2 bedroom unit, £650 per 3 bedroom unit and £800 per 4+ bedroom unit providing a total of £6925;

iv. A public realm, open space, children's play, outdoor recreation, biodiversity, riverside contribution of £1600 per 2 bedroom unit and

£2600 per 3 bedroom unit and £3200 per 4+ bedroom unit providing a total of £27700;

v. A sustainable travel contribution of £900 per 2 bedroom unit, £1300 per 3 bedroom unit and £1600 per 4+ bedroom unit providing a total of £13850;

vi. A combined contribution for C1 hotels and non-residential development of £20,000 per 100sqm of development for sustainable and environmental improvements to make a total of £224800 (based on the non-residential floorspace of the rebuilt extension)

vii. Community safety and visitor management contribution viii. Travel Plan monitoring fee of £500; ix. Submission of Construction Management Plan for approval and

implementation prior to commencement of development; x. Car park management plan, inc parking for disabled occupiers and

Electric Vehicle Charging Points; xi. Exclusion from Controlled Parking Zone and Council owned car parks

and requirement to notify potential buyers or tenants (£1500 towards amendment to traffic management order);

xii. £150 Monitoring fee per planning obligation

Sustainability

67. Council policy CS1 states that the Council will require all major developments to achieve Code level 5 for energy/ CO2 and are encouraged to meet the other Code for Sustainable Homes Level categories (water, materials, surface water run-off and waste). Other new build developments over 500sqm including conversions, refurbishments, extensions and changes of use are encouraged to meet BREEAM Outstanding. Where it is not possible to meet the standards, compelling reasons must demonstrate that achieving the sustainability standards would not be technically feasible or economically viable. Comments have been received from the Council’s sustainability officer, which state: 26% CO2 emissions reduction does not meet the London Plan's 40% target, but given that this is a listed building, which limits what can be achieved this is acceptable and will be partly achieved through the installation of air source heatpumps, solar PV panels and a CHP system. Need to show where solar PVs are proposed to ensure visual acceptability and maximisation of emissions reduction target. Code Level 4 for the residential units and BREEAM Excellent for the cinema, children's play area, office space and restaurant are proposed, which although less than Code Level 5 and BREEAM Outstanding is considered acceptable given the site constraints. Conditions are required to secure this. There are no heat networks for the proposed development to connect to.

Other Material Considerations

68. Disabled Access: The play centre has level access to the lower area from the entrances on Richmond Road. The area which utilises the original entrance area is raised (steps) and will need to be made accessible as part of the fit-out works when a tenant is identified. A platform lift could be included within the main entrance steps if necessary. The ground floor entrance to the D1/D2 balcony area has level access and incorporates a lift to take you to the upper floors, including the first floor dance hall and the upper/ rear part of the balcony area. The restaurant area is accessed from Richmond Road – a platform lift in the entrance lobby gives access to wheelchair users. The mezzanine levels have lift access. The residential entrance and all residential levels are fully accessible, as are the office and serviced apartments accessed from Cowleaze Road. The office unit within the existing building has lift access from an entrance in Canbury Park Road. There are disabled parking spaces in the basement with lift access to the upper floors.

Lifetimes Homes/ Wheelchair accessible units

69. Policy DM13 states that new residential development will be expected to be designed and built to Lifetime Homes standards and ensure that at least 10% of units would be wheelchair accessible. All properties would be built to Lifetime Homes Standards and 2 out of the 14 units would be wheelchair accessible. This exceeds the policy requirement.

70. Archaeology: Policy DM12 states that heritage assets should be preserved. The site is located within an Archaeological Priority Area. The

development could have some impact on archaeological remains. Conditions are required to ensure further information is provided to confirm whether archaeological remains exist on site or whether they have been truncated by quarrying or the building of the cinema building and ensure that the post investigation assessment has been carried out and that building recording takes place.

Background Papers to inform this paper held by Toby Feltham, author of the report, Tel. 02085474707 email Toby.Feltham@Kingston.gov.uk