This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request 'Information relating to the Kingston Direction of Travel Adoption Report'.



Caroline Scott 
(By email) 
Our Ref: MGLA090419-9975   
3 May 2019 
Dear Ms Scott 
Thank you for your further request for information which the GLA received on 8 April 2019.  
Your request has been dealt with under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.  
Our response to your request is as follows: 
1. Please can you send me copies of written internal communication between GLA officers, and
of written communication between GLA officers and any person, company or other entity
outside of the GLA - including the name of the company, entity or person and the position of
the person within that company or other entity with whom communication took place -
relating to the Kingston Direction of Travel Adoption Report, all between the dates of 1
December 2018 and 8 April 2019 inclusive, all in whatsoever form such communication may
exist.

Please find attached the information we hold within scope of your request. I note that some of 
the content would have informed our response to my response of 1 May 2019. I worked 
through your requests case by case and had not noticed the inclusion of the relevant emails 
which informed this response. Please accept my apologies for this oversight.  
2. Please can you send me agendas and minutes of any meetings, and any reports supporting
or stemming from such meetings, in which the Kingston Direction of Travel Adoption Report
is mentioned, all between the dates 1 December 2018 and 8 April 2019.

Please find attached below (pages 16-28) 
If you have any further questions relating to this matter, please contact me, quoting the 
reference at the top of this letter.  
Yours sincerely 
Paul Robinson  
Information Governance Officer 


If you are unhappy with the way the GLA has handled your request, you may complain using the 
GLA’s FOI complaints and internal review procedure, available at: 
 
https://www.london.gov.uk/about-us/governance-and-spending/sharing-our-
information/freedom-information 
 
 
 
 
 

From:
Information Governance
Sent:
13 March 2019 11:00
To:
Subject:

RE: MGLA180219-5861
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Completed
Categories:
Green Category, Blue Category
Fantastic – thanks! then I will leave it with you 
The WriteON due date is incorrect BTW – deadline I Fri 15 not Mon 18 (it’s a glitch that affects some cases received 
on weekend dates) 
From: 
Sent: 13 March 2019 10:51 
To: Information Governance <Information‐xxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxx.xxx.xx> 
Subject: RE: MGLA180219‐5861 
Hi 
Just spoken to 
 He’s liaising with Kingston.  
I don’t usually get copied in at this stage, once the response is finalised, Juliemma will confirm and I will be cc’d in so 
I can save in her folder. 
Thanks 
From: Information Governance  
Sent: 13 March 2019 10:23 
To: 
 <
london.gov.uk> 
Subject: FW: MGLA180219‐5861 
Hi 
I probably should have CCd you into this from the start – sorry. 
 and I put together this draft response and I 
wanted to check Juliemma is happy with it before sending (deadline this Fri 15) 
I don’t know what he usual process is for DEE cases. 
 usually leads on these but am covering – please let me 
know if I need to send it to someone else 
Thanks! 
From: Information Governance  
Sent: 08 March 2019 11:58 
To: Juliemma McLoughlin 
@london.gov.uk> 
1

Cc: 
 <
london.gov.uk> 
Subject: FW: MGLA180219‐5861 
Good morning Juliemma 
Draft response to FOI request attached for approval.  
FYI only ‐ The GLA’s reply will be automatically posted on the www.WhatDoTheyKnow.com website when we reply 
Please let us know if you have any comments 
Thank you 
From: 
Sent: 08 March 2019 11:00 
To: Information Governance <Information‐xxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxx.xxx.xx> 
Cc: xxx.xxxx@xxxxxx.xxx.xx 
Subject: MGLA180219‐5861 
Hello 
I've attached my draft response to this FoI. grateful for any comments 
Thanks 
Growth Strategies and Urban Design Manager, London PlanTeam 
GREATERLONDONAUTHORITY 
City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA 
 
london.gov.uk 
london.gov.uk 
2

From:
Information Governance
Sent:
08 March 2019 11:50
To:
Cc:
Subject:

RE: MGLA180219-5861
Attachments:
MGLA180219-5861.docx
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Completed
Categories:
Green Category, Blue Category
Thanks 
I’ve re‐saved (I don’t know how to delete that blank first page without ruining the letter template) 
There’s an element we have not addressed in the second question. Do we have that info? I am on 
 if you are 
free to chat now 
Q: Please also send the agenda for the meeting at which that document was approved, a list of attendees at 
the meeting, minutes of the meeting, next steps recorded at the meeting, and the name and position of the 
person who signed the Adoption document. 

A: The Agenda for this meeting is attached. No minutes are taken at the meeting, but all decision reports are 
placed on the GLA website. The Adoption document was signed by the Mayor.  
PS 
 we’ll CC you into the final reply (it’s via WDTK.com) 
From: 
Sent: 08 March 2019 11:00 
To: Information Governance 
Cc: 
x@xxxxxx.xxx.xx 
Subject: MGLA180219‐5861 
Hello 
I've attached my draft response to this FoI. grateful for any comments 
Thanks 
Growth Strategies and Urban Design Manager, London PlanTeam 
GREATERLONDONAUTHORITY 
City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA 
020 7983 
1







From:
Sent:

06 March 2019 14:44
To:
Subject:

RE: Kingston FoI
All online now. Same URL as you used below.  
Planning Support Manager, Planning 
GREATERLONDONAUTHORITY 
City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA 
www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning 
london.gov.uk  
From: 
Sent: 06 March 2019 09:20 
To: 
 <
london.gov.uk> 
Subject: Kingston FoI 
Hi 
 
Can I check where the decision report will go on the website? I will refer to it in the response email 
Here? ‐ https://www.london.gov.uk/what‐we‐do/planning/implementing‐london‐plan/opportunity‐
areas/direction‐travel‐royal‐borough‐kingston‐upon‐thames 
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Direction of Travel for Royal Borough of 
Kingston upon Thames | London City 
Hall - london.gov.uk 
www.london.gov.uk 
The Direction of Travel for the Royal Borough of Kingston 
upon Thames (Kingston DoT) provides supplementary 
planning advice to the London Plan policies to support 
the development and intensification of areas within the 
borough to provide new homes, jobs and investment. 
Thanks  
1

From:
Sent:

04 March 2019 16:25
To:
Subject:

RE: FoI - Kingston DoT 
Attachments:
Kingston DoT FoI 040319.doc
Hi 
 
Attached is the draft response to the FoI – any comments? 
Thanks 
From: 
Sent: 19 February 2019 15:31 
To: 
 <
london.gov.uk> 
Subject: RE: FoI ‐ Kingston DoT  
I can ask her but I very much doubt she’ll be able to remember what happened over two years ago or indeed 
whether it was her at all as 
 used to send the Mayoral decisions. Given the time, I can’t imagine a copy is still 
saved anywhere if she did scan it.  
My understanding of the process was that the officer got the letter signed and they did whatever they needed to do 
with it (which I assume is usually upload to web). All the Mayoral decisions are put in the green tray for us to send 
out, so if it wasn’t put there, we wouldn’t have sent it out. Any decisions that are sent out by us are cc’d into the 
planning inbox which makes me think it’s very unlikely this letter came through the then admin team.  
Why do you think 
 scanned it?  
From: 
 <
london.gov.uk>  
Sent: 19 February 2019 14:44 
To: 
 <
london.gov.uk> 
Subject: RE: FoI ‐ Kingston DoT  
Could you ask 
 if she scanned it? 
From: 
Sent: 19 February 2019 09:53 
To: 
 <
london.gov.uk> 
Subject: Re: FoI ‐ Kingston DoT  
No idea, sorry. 
(if anyone) will probably be the best person for this 
From: 
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 9:50:42 AM 
To: 
Subject: RE: FoI ‐ Kingston DoT  
Do you know where 
 kept her files? 
From: 
Sent: 19 February 2019 09:49 
1

To: 
 <
london.gov.uk> 
Subject: RE: FoI ‐ Kingston DoT  
I can’t find anything in the planning inbox. Only stage 1 decisions. I could only find the unsigned version in the 
agenda folder. I’ve checked the web and we didn’t publish it at any time.  
From: 
Sent: 19 February 2019 09:37 
To: 
 <
london.gov.uk> 
Subject: RE: FoI ‐ Kingston DoT  
It went to the 17 Oct 2016 meeting 
From: 
Sent: 19 February 2019 09:15 
To: 
 <
london.gov.uk> 
Subject: RE: FoI ‐ Kingston DoT  
Ah. Was there a letter that the Mayor signed? I have no recollection of this happening.  
I’ll check the planning inbox where we keep all a record of all decisions sent out. Do you know roughly when this 
happened?  
From: 
 <
london.gov.uk>  
Sent: 19 February 2019 09:11 
To: 
 <
london.gov.uk> 
Subject: RE: FoI ‐ Kingston DoT  
 normally scanned the signed document – do you know where she saved them? 
I don’t think a signed copy was placed on the website 
From: 
Sent: 19 February 2019 09:08 
To: 
 <
london.gov.uk> 
Cc: 
 <
london.gov.uk>; 
 <
london.gov.uk> 
Subject: Re: FoI ‐ Kingston DoT  
Hi 
We don't keep a signed version after the meeting. With OAPFs we don't send out a decision letter as such, 
it's just published to the OAPF page.  
We also don't have a standard line. However, previously, I have explained a bit about how the meetings 
work and that we don't take minutes but instead publish the decisions. We need to be able to track down a 
signed version to be able to do this...  
Do you know how long ago we unpublished it from the web? I'm thinking of quickly rolling back the website 
to a previous version and seeing if I can get it that way. The document must exist in the websites document 
repository regardless so I'll try that.  
2

From: 
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 8:38:45 AM 
To: 
Cc: 
Subject: RE: FoI ‐ Kingston DoT  
Hi 
 
RBK also requested this, but I can’t find a signed version in the OAPF folder – do you keep a copy with the meeting 
papers?  
Do we have a standard response when people request details of a Mayor’s planning meeting? 
Thanks 
From: 
Sent: 18 February 2019 17:26 
To: 
 <
london.gov.uk> 
Cc: 
 <
london.gov.uk>; 
 <
london.gov.uk> 
Subject: FoI ‐ Kingston DoT  
We’ve just received the below FoI which I have allocated to you on WriteOn 
Dear Greater London Authority,  
Please can you send me a copy of the original signed and dated report "Direction of Travel for the Royal Borough of 
Kingston upon Thames ‐ Adoption" , D&P/ Kingston OAPF/02 dated 17 October 2016 (the "Adoption document")?  
Please also send the agenda for the meeting at which that document was approved, a list of attendees at the 
meeting, minutes of the meeting, next steps recorded at the meeting, and the name and position of the person who 
signed the Adoption document.  
Yours faithfully,  
3

From:
Sent:

19 February 2019 09:17
To:
Subject:

RE: FoI - Kingston DoT 
Not a letter – he signs the decision paper.
 and
 led on this, I wasn’t involved and didn’t attend the meeting
From: 
Sent: 19 February 2019 09:15 
To: 
 <
london.gov.uk> 
Subject: RE: FoI ‐ Kingston DoT  
Ah. Was there a letter that the Mayor signed? I have no recollection of this happening.  
I’ll check the planning inbox where we keep all a record of all decisions sent out. Do you know roughly when this 
happened?  
From: 
 <
london.gov.uk>  
Sent: 19 February 2019 09:11 
To: 
 <
london.gov.uk> 
Subject: RE: FoI ‐ Kingston DoT  
 normally scanned the signed document – do you know where she saved them? 
I don’t think a signed copy was placed on the website 
From: 
Sent: 19 February 2019 09:08 
To: 
 <
london.gov.uk> 
Cc: 
 <
london.gov.uk>; 
 <
london.gov.uk> 
Subject: Re: FoI ‐ Kingston DoT  
Hi 
We don't keep a signed version after the meeting. With OAPFs we don't send out a decision letter as such, 
it's just published to the OAPF page.  
We also don't have a standard line. However, previously, I have explained a bit about how the meetings 
work and that we don't take minutes but instead publish the decisions. We need to be able to track down a 
signed version to be able to do this...  
Do you know how long ago we unpublished it from the web? I'm thinking of quickly rolling back the website 
to a previous version and seeing if I can get it that way. The document must exist in the websites document 
repository regardless so I'll try that.  
From: 
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 8:38:45 AM 
To: 
1

Cc: 
Subject: RE: FoI ‐ Kingston DoT  
Hi 
 
RBK also requested this, but I can’t find a signed version in the OAPF folder – do you keep a copy with the meeting 
papers?  
Do we have a standard response when people request details of a Mayor’s planning meeting? 
Thanks 
From: 
Sent: 18 February 2019 17:26 
To: 
 <
london.gov.uk> 
Cc: 
 <
london.gov.uk>; 
 <
london.gov.uk> 
Subject: FoI ‐ Kingston DoT  
We’ve just received the below FoI which I have allocated to you on WriteOn 
Dear Greater London Authority,  
Please can you send me a copy of the original signed and dated report "Direction of Travel for the Royal Borough of 
Kingston upon Thames ‐ Adoption" , D&P/ Kingston OAPF/02 dated 17 October 2016 (the "Adoption document")?  
Please also send the agenda for the meeting at which that document was approved, a list of attendees at the 
meeting, minutes of the meeting, next steps recorded at the meeting, and the name and position of the person who 
signed the Adoption document.  
Yours faithfully,  
2

From:
Sent:

02 April 2019 09:57
To:
Subject:

RE: MGLA180219-5861 Freedom of Information request - Direction of Travel Approval 17 
October 2016 D&P/ Kingston OAPF/02
Yes I thought it was a bit odd. Perhaps the requester didn’t scroll down to the attachment ‐ I'll draft something up 
and run it past you before sending. I note she has submitted a further request too yesterday which I think PLU are 
currently loading.  
 
 
[Separate topic unrelated to this request]
Thanks 
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 
From: 
Sent: 01 April 2019 12:35 
To: 
 <
london.gov.uk>; 
 <
london.gov.uk>; 
 <
london.gov.uk>; 
 <
london.gov.uk>; 
<
london.gov.uk> 
Subject: RE: MGLA180219‐5861 Freedom of Information request ‐ Direction of Travel Approval 17 October 2016 
D&P/ Kingston OAPF/02 
I thought this was included in the answer ‐ we attached a copy of the agenda, placed a signed copy of the Adoption 
report on the website and the rest of the information is not held Thanks 
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 
From: 
Sent: 01 April 2019 10:16 
To: 
 <
london.gov.uk>; 
 <
london.gov.uk>; 
 <
london.gov.uk>; 
 <
london.gov.uk> 
Cc: 
 <
london.gov.uk> 
Subject: RE: MGLA180219‐5861 Freedom of Information request ‐ Direction of Travel Approval 17 October 2016 
D&P/ Kingston OAPF/02 
MGLA010419‐9167 
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 
From: 
Sent: 01 April 2019 08:04 
To: 
 <
london.gov.uk>; 
 <
london.gov.uk>; 
 <
london.gov.uk> 
Cc: 
 <
london.gov.uk>; 
 <
london.gov.uk> 
Subject: RE: MGLA180219‐5861 Freedom of Information request ‐ Direction of Travel Approval 17 October 2016 
D&P/ Kingston OAPF/02 
Thanks 
FOI complex / info gov inbox  
1

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 
From: 
Sent: 01 April 2019 08:02 
To: 
 <
london.gov.uk>; 
 <
london.gov.uk>; 
<
london.gov.uk> 
Cc: 
 <
london.gov.uk> 
Subject: FW: MGLA180219‐5861 Freedom of Information request ‐ Direction of Travel Approval 17 October 2016 
D&P/ Kingston OAPF/02 
FOI 
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 
From: 
 [mailto:request‐553109‐xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx] 
Sent: 30 March 2019 23:31 
To: Mayor <xxxxx@xxxxxx.xxx.xx> 
Subject: RE: MGLA180219‐5861 Freedom of Information request ‐ Direction of Travel Approval 17 October 2016 
D&P/ Kingston OAPF/02 
Dear Mayor of London, 
Thank you for your reply. You did not respond to the following part of my question relating to the Adoption 
Document for the Kingston OAPF. Please can you do so now: 
"Please also send (the agenda for the meeting at which that document was approved), a list of attendees at the 
meeting, minutes of the meeting, next steps recorded at the meeting, and the name and position of the person who 
signed the Adoption document." 
Yours sincerely, 
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 
Dear 
 Please find attached response in relation to your request for information. 
 Yours sincerely 
 information Governance Officer 
 #LondonIsOpen 
 GREATER LONDON AUTHORITY NOTICE: 
 The information in this email may contain confidential or privileged  materials. For more information  see 
[1]https://www.london.gov.uk/about‐us/email‐notice/ 
References 
 Visible links 
1. https://www.london.gov.uk/about‐us/email‐notice
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 
2

From:
@kingston.gov.uk>
Sent:
17 January 2019 12:01
To:
Subject:

Re: Kingston Opportunity Area / Direction of Travel
Many thanks for this ‐ hopefully this will stop some of the questions. Are we able to make this public? Would it be 
helpful to publish the report on the GLA website? 
.  
[Separate topic unrelated to this request]
Thanks 
Strategic Planning
Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames 
Guildhall 2, High Street, Kingston Upon Thames, KT1 1EU 
W: www.kingston.gov.uk 
On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 at 18:17, 
 <
london.gov.uk> wrote: 
Hi 
I’ve only managed to find this unsigned version of the report to the Mayor. It is, however, the one that went to the 
meeting on 17 Oct 2016. 

[Separate topic unrelated to this request]
Thanks 
From:
@kingston.gov.uk>  
Sent: 16 January 2019 15:56 
To: 
 <
london.gov.uk> 
Subject: Kingston Opportunity Area / Direction of Travel 
1


















Hi 
I hope you are well. At Kingston we have had a number of FOIs recently regarding our Opportunity Area. These are 
now being escalated to our monitoring officer, so are keen to put them to bed as soon as possible! 
We have the paper trail of where all decisions were made, but the latest query is in relation to the adoption of the 
Direction of Travel in 2016 by the GLA during Kingston's committee call in period. At Kingston we adopted the DOT 
at our Growth Committee on 13th October, and I believe it was adopted by the Mayor on 17th October 2016.  
Could you please send me the decision notice / report that went to the Mayor for sign off of the DOT, which I 
believe was signed off on 17th October 2016? There is nothing on your website, other than the document and the 
consultation draft itself: https://www.london.gov.uk/what‐we‐do/planning/implementing‐london‐
plan/opportunity‐areas/direction‐travel‐royal‐borough‐kingston‐upon‐thames 
I hope you are able to assist (apologies, I realise you'll be very busy with the EIP!) 
Many thanks 
Strategic Planning
Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames 
Guildhall 2, High Street, Kingston Upon Thames, KT1 1EU
W: www.kingston.gov.uk
Disclaimers apply, for full details see : 
(https://www.kingston.gov.uk/info/200281/policies_and_statements/1212/email_disclaimer) 
This message has been scanned for viruses by the Greater London Authority.  
Click here to report this email as spam. 
#LondonIsOpen 
GREATER LONDON AUTHORITY NOTICE:  
The information in this email may contain confidential or privileged materials. For more information see 
https://www.london.gov.uk/about‐us/email‐notice/ 
Disclaimers apply, for full details see : 
(https://www.kingston.gov.uk/info/200281/policies_and_statements/1212/email_disclaimer) 
2
















   planning report GLA/5014/01 
 18 March 2019 
20 Eden Street, Kingston-upon-Thames 
in the Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames 
planning application no.18/12876/FUL 
Strategic planning application stage 1 referral  
Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and 2007; 
Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008.  
The proposal 
Demolition of all existing and the erection of a part two and part eight storey office (Class B1a) 
building (31.6 metres AOD), with a basement and cycle parking. 
The applicant 
The applicant is SRG Eden Ltd and the architect is 
 Murphy Architects. 
Strategic issues summary 
Principle of development
: The loss of existing housing is a concern and this must be addressed. 
The proposed office use is supported in accordance with the London Plan and the draft London 
Plan (paragraphs 15 to 18). 
Heritage and urban design:  The development will cause harm to Kingston Old Town 
Conservation Area and the design should be subject to further independent design review given 
issues raised in relation to building height, massing and elevation detailing (paragraphs 19 to 31). 
Sustainable development: Further verification information is required regarding energy and 
flood risk to be in compliant with draft London Plan and London Plan policies. (paragraph 33 to 
41). 
Transport: Enhancements to the public realm should be secured as part of the application. The 
car free nature of the proposals is welcome, but further cycle parking should be provided in 
compliance with the draft London Plan and the applicant should demonstrate how blue badge 
parking needs are met off-site. Office travel plan, delivery and service plan and construction 
management plan should be secured  (paragraphs 42 to 48). 
Recommendation 
That Kingston Council be advised that whilst the application is supported in strategic planning 
terms, the application does not yet comply with the London Plan and draft London Plan for the 
reasons set out in paragraph 52 of this report; but that the possible remedies set out in that 
paragraph could address these deficiencies. 
Context 
page 1 


On 18 February 2019, the Mayor of London received documents from Kingston Council 
notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above site 
for the above uses. Under the provisions of The Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) 
Order 2008 the Mayor must provide the Council with a statement setting out whether he considers 
that the application complies with the London Plan, and his reasons for taking that view. The 
Mayor may also provide other comments. This report sets out information for the Mayor’s use in 
deciding what decision to make. 
2
The application is referable under Category 1C of the Schedule to the Mayor of London 
Order 2008: 
‘Category 1C(c): Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building of one or 
more of the following descriptions— the building is more than 30 metres high and is outside the 
City of London. ‘ 

3
Once Kingston Council has resolved to determine the application, it is required to refer it 
back to the Mayor for his decision as to whether to direct refusal; take it over for his own 
determination; or allow the Council to determine it itself. 
4
The Mayor of London’s statement on this case will be made available on the GLA website 
www.london.gov.uk. 
Site description 
5
The site is located within Kingston Town Centre and is situated to the west of St James 
Road set back set back approximately 15 metres from the junction with Eden Street to the north.  
It comprises existing buildings at No.20 Eden Street and Nos. 2, 2a and 2b St James Road.  To the 
north of the site is Bath Passage, a 3.5 metres wide single width access which separates the site 
from the rear of buildings fronting Eden Street.   
6
The site is roughly rectangular in form and the existing buildings are part two and part 
single storey which occupy the entire site area.  The building fronting St James Road has a two-
storey element with a single storey at the rear, the ground floor contains 4 retail units and the first 
floor accommodates 9 studio/bedsit units in a House of Multiple Occupation which are accessed 
from a shared front door onto St James Road.   
7
Kingston is proposed as a new Opportunity Area (OA) in the draft London Plan, with the 
capacity to accommodate at least 9,000 new homes and 5,000 new jobs. The OA comprises 
Kingston Town Centre, Norbiton, New Malden and Tolworth. A Direction of Travel document was 
adopted in 2016 to guide planning policies in these areas. 
8
The site is located in the Kingston Old Town Conservation Area and to the west is the 
Graded II Listed Guildhall building.  To the south, Guildhall 1 is a 4-storey modern and imposing 
dark brick building with its rear elevation fronting St James Road.  To the north of the site on the 
opposite side of Bath Passage is a terrace of 3 storey properties fronting Eden Street which 
accommodates office and retail commercial uses at ground floor with residential accommodation at 
first and second floor levels.    
9
The closest section of the Strategic Road Network (SRN) is the A240 Wheatfield Way which 
is 210 metres away. London Cycle Route Network route 3 runs along Eden Street to the north of 
the site.  
10
Kingston National Rail Station is located 660 metres to the north east of the site and there 
are 22 bus routes within an acceptable walking distance. Based upon the proximity of the site to 
page 2 

frequent modes of public transport, the public transport accessibility level (PTAL) of the site is 6a, 
on a scale of 1 to 6b where 6b is most accessible. 
Details of the proposal 
11
The proposal is for the demolition of the existing two storey buildings at 2A/2B St James’s 
Road and 20 Eden Street and the erection of a 2,263 sq.m. B1 office building comprising 
basement, ground floor and seven upper storeys.  The second to seventh floor levels will be 
recessed from the principal northern elevation with a building height of 31.6 metres (AOD). 
Case history 
12
The proposals have not been subject to the GLA pre-application process and there is no 
history of referable applications for this site. 
Strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance 
13
For the purposes of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the 
development plan in force for the area is the Kingston Core Strategy that was adopted in 2012 and 
the 2008 K+20 Kingston Town Centre Area Action Plan and the 2016 London Plan (Consolidated 
with alterations since 2011).   
14
The following are relevant material considerations: 

The National Planning Policy Framework and National Planning Practice Guidance;

Draft London Plan (consultation draft December 2017, including early suggested change
published August 2018) which should be taken into account on the basis described in the
NPPF;

Direction of Travel for the Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames (2016); and

The Eden Quarter Development Brief SPD (2015).

Land use and offices
London Plan and draft London Plan  

Town Centres
London Plan and draft London Plan 

Urban design
London Plan; Housing SPG; Shaping Neighbourhoods: 
Character and Context SPG; Housing SPG; Shaping 
Neighbourhoods: Play and Informal Recreation SPG;
 

Historic environment
London Plan and draft London Plan 

Inclusive design
London Plan; Accessible London: Achieving an inclusive 
environment SPG;
 

Sustainable development
London Plan; Sustainable Design and Construction SPG; 
London Environment Strategy;
 

Transport
London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy.  
Principle of development 
15
The application land use proposals are for the demolition of all existing and the erection of 
a part two and part eight storey 2,263 sq.m. office building (Class B1a), the development will result 
in the loss of 399 sq.m. of retail floorspace and 9 residential studio/bedsit units. 
16
Loss of housing is contrary to London Plan Policy 3.14 and draft London Plan Policy H10. 
The applicant states that the existing bedsit units, typically occupied by students, are difficult to 
let given the large amount of modern student accommodation coming forward in the area. 
page 3 

However, even if this were accepted, the residential floorspace could be re-provided in a different 
form to an equivalent or better standard, which would satisfy the aims of London Plan Policy.  
17 
London Plan Policy 4.2 ‘Offices’ and Policy E1 of the draft London Plan support new office 
space of different sizes in locations where there is evidence of demand, including existing office 
clusters with good or improving public transport connections.  Table 6.1 of the draft London Plan 
identifies projected office floorspace growth of 23%, and a demand for 0.3-1.5 million sq.m. of 
office floorspace in outer London between 2016 and 2041. Furthermore, Kingston town centre is 
identified in the draft London Plan Table A1.1 -Town Centre Network as a Metropolitan centre 
with potential for mixed use office potential and Policy SD1 Opportunity Areas identifies Kingston 
Town centre as benefitting from the future delivery of Crossrail 2 which would enhance it its 
prospects as an office location. This is reflected in the emerging Opportunity Area designation and 
Direction of Travel document, which identifies the area as having capacity to provide at least 5,000 
new jobs. The loss of a small amount of retail space does not raise strategic concerns, although as 
noted in the design section below, new retail frontage could assist in animating the street. 
18
  The principle of office development on the site is supported by London Plan and draft 
London Plan policies, however the loss of residential accommodation is a concern and must be 
addressed before the principle of the proposal can be supported by GLA officers.  
Heritage and urban design 
19 
The proposals have not been through the GLA pre-application process and given the 
building height is in excess of 30 metres, GLA officers would have requested the scheme to be 
taken to design review in compliance with draft London Plan Policy D2 ‘Delivering good design’, 
specifically relating to design scrutiny.  It is the view of GLA officers that the scheme should be still 
subject to independent design review before Stage 2 given the sensitivity of its location. 
Heritage 
20
London Plan Policy 7.8 ‘Heritage Assets and Archaeology’ and Policy HC1 of the draft 
London Plan states that development should identify, value, conserve, restore, re-use and 
incorporate heritage assets where appropriate.   
21 
The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 sets out the tests for 
dealing with heritage assets in planning decisions.  In relation to listed buildings, all planning 
decisions should “have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or 
any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses” 
and in relation to 
conservation areas, special attention must be paid to “the desirability of preserving or enhancing 
the character or appearance of that area”.  
The NPPF states that when considering the impact of a 
proposal on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the 
asset’s conservation, and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. 
22
The site is located in the Kingston Old Town Conservation Area close to the Grade II listed 
Guildhall building.  There are concerns that the development as proposed will cause harm to the 
Conservation Area and heritage assets within owing to the design and massing in the context of 
the surrounding Conservation Area (the site is located on the western perimeter of the 
conservation area). 
23 
  It is accepted that there is the potential for a well-designed building to manage the 
transition between the larger modern developments to the east and the Guildhall. However, the 
proposals for this site must be appropriately scaled to relate to the Conservation Area and the 
setting of the Grade II listed Guildhall building, which plays a central role in the local townscape, 
and must preserve and enhance key views of this building.  There is concern that the current 
page 4 

massing and elevational treatments give rise to a harmful impact on the listed Guidhall building and 
the Conservation Area generally.  In particular, the views along Bath Passage towards the tower of 
the Guildhal  play an important role in the setting of this building. These should be further 
reviewed and care should be taken to ensure that the listed building remains clearly visible in these 
views and that the quality of Bath Passage is enhanced. Further views looking east from the High 
Street should also be considered, where the site is seen in the context of the Guildhall (which is 
generally framed by 3-5 storey buildings) and the applicant should demonstrate the impact on 
views from the Market Place.   
24
Further information is therefore required before GLA officers can make a full assessment of 
the harm to the setting of heritage assets. The applicant is requested to engage with GLA officers 
with a view to reducing the visual impact of the development. 
Urban design 
Layout 
25
The building layout allows for a basement level with ground and first floor plinth with the 
floorplans covering the entire site. The remaining eight floors step in with a reduced floorplate 
containing open plan offices and servicing core to the north-east.  
26
The ground floor plan requires further consideration given the large areas of inactive 
frontage facing Bath Passage and the refuse stores would benefit from being wrapped around by 
active uses and minimising the required entrance.  The applicant should also respond to the 
borough steer on providing active retail frontage on the ground floor as this will enhance street 
activation.  
Height, massing and scale 
27
The proposed approach to the massing responds to the Council’s Eden Quarter 
Development Brief by maximising height to eight storeys and allowing for a shaved off plinth of 2 
storeys consisting of a double height ground floor with the first floor of the offices.  Given the 
heritage comments above, further massing options and analysis should be provided to justify the 
adopted building height.  In particular attention should be given to further tapering in the service 
core facing the Guidhall building which steps out from the office floors to further improve views 
along Bath Passage and the removal of the wall around the roof top servicing core and treating the 
lift overrun as a design feature.   
Elevations and materials 
28
The architectural approach proposes simple detailing and the use of brick and light-
coloured terracotta cladding system as facing materials. The palette of materials appears 
reasonable for the site context although the appearance of the cladding in the context of the 
Grade II listed Guildhal  building is a concern and alternative options should be tested in these 
views.   
29 
Further consideration should be given to the western elevation as viewed from 
Guildhall/High Street as it appears as more of a gable end which although articulated with differing 
materials would benefit from being designed as a primary frontage. Although it is accepted the 
adjacent site may come forward for development in the future it is unlikely to be developed to any 
significant height, so this is likely to be a key public-facing elevation in this heritage context.  
30
The ground floor elevation on St James’ Street looking north would also benefit from the 
introduction of glazing where it protrudes out into the street rather presenting a blank wall. 
page 5 

Options should be developed for the upper floors removing the blank gable end, noting that this 
will also be a prominent elevation in views along this street.  
31
In accordance with draft London Plan Policy D2 Kingston Council must ensure that 
appropriate controls are in place to secure high quality of materials and detailing. 
Access 
32
The applicant should demonstrate compliance with London Plan Policy 4.5 and provide 
more detail on the inclusive access features of the building as this appears to have been omitted 
from the DAS.  This should demonstrate how entry points and vertical and horizontal movement 
within the building have also been designed to be accessible, and routes to the existing and 
proposed public realm will be level and unobstructed. 
Sustainable development 
33
Full details of the outstanding issues relating to energy and flood risk have been provided 
directly to the applicant and Kingston Council under separate cover. 
Energy 
34
The energy strategy will result in an on-site reduction of 21 tonnes of carbon dioxide per 
year compared to 2013 Building Regulations for the non-domestic buildings, equivalent to an 
overall saving of 38%. The carbon dioxide savings exceed the target set within Policy 5.2 of the 
London Plan, however further verification information should be provided before the energy 
strategy is compliant with draft London Plan and London Plan. 
35
The applicant should confirm whether it will be assessing the development against SAP 
2012 or SAP 10 emission factors and robust justification should be provided for the use of the SAP 
2012 emissions factors.  The applicant should model additional energy efficiency measures and 
commit to higher carbon savings through energy efficiency alone.  Modelling suggests U-values of 
0.12W/m2K, this appears low and the applicant is required to explain how this will be achieved and 
that impact on floor space.  In line with the latest GLA guidance (Table 8) the applicant should 
report the energy demand following the energy efficiency measures. 
36
The applicant has carried out an investigation and there are no existing or planned district 
heating networks within the vicinity of the proposed development. It should however provide a 
commitment to ensure that the development is designed to allow future connection to a district 
heating network. Drawings demonstrating how the site is to be future-proofed for a connection to 
a district heating network should be provided.  
37
The applicant is proposing to install a refrigerant based communal heating and cooling 
system; however, they should install a heat network that is compatible with connection to district 
heating (i.e. a wet system). It should confirm that all building areas/uses will be connected to the 
communal heat network and this should be demonstrated on a plan. The communal heat network 
should be supplied from a single energy centre. Further information on the floor area, internal 
layout and location. 
38
The applicant has investigated the feasibility of a range of renewable energy technologies 
and is proposing to install Photovoltaic (PV) panels and VRF Heat Pumps. It should note that 
reduction in carbon dioxide emissions due to heat pumps should be included at the Be Green rather 
than the Be Clean stage.  A detailed roof layout should be provided outlining any constraints to 
additional PV and demonstrating that the roof’s potential for a PV installation has been maximised.  
Flood risk 
page 6 

39 
The Flood Risk Assessment provided for the proposed development does not comply with 
London Plan policy 5.12 (and draft New London Plan policy SI.12), as it does not give appropriate 
regard to the sequential and exception tests. 
40
The surface water drainage strategy for the proposed development does not comply with 
London Plan policy 5.13 (and draft policy SI.13), as it does not give appropriate regard to the 
drainage hierarchy and greenfield runoff rate.  Greenfield runoff rates and calculations should be 
included in the drainage strategy document.  Further details on how SuDS measures at the top of 
the drainage hierarchy will be included in the development, and how greenfield runoff rate will be 
achieved should be provided.  Additional attenuation storage volume calculations, attenuation tank 
dimensions, assessment of exceedance flow paths, and SuDS maintenance information should also 
be provided. 
41
The proposed development generally meets the requirements of London Plan policy 5.15 
(and draft New London Plan policy SI.5).  The applicant should also consider water harvesting and 
reuse to reduce consumption of wholesome water across the entire development site.  This can be 
integrated with the surface water drainage system to provide a dual benefit. 
Transport 
Vehicular access and trip generation 
42
There will be no direct vehicle access from the site onto the TLRN.  The overall trip 
generation assessment is acceptable. 
Pedestrian access and healthy streets 
43
The applicant is proposing cycle access to the north of the site from Bath Passage and the 
pedestrian access to the east of the site, fronting St James’s Street and this is acceptable.  
Enhancements to the public realm are not currently proposed and the Council should secure 
enhancements to the vicinity of the site to align with the Healthy Streets indicators, such as places 
to stop and rest. 
Car and cycle parking 
44 
The car free nature of the development and the agreement by the applicant that the 
occupants should be exempt from parking permits is welcomed and this should be secured by 
condition. It should be demonstrated that blue badge parking can be accommodated nearby. 
45
The cycle parking fails to adhere to draft London Plan standards and this should be 
addressed accordingly. To be draft London Plan compliant, the applicant should provide 30 long 
stay and 5 short stay cycle parking spaces. This is an uplift of 15 cycle parking spaces.  
46
The applicant should provide clarification on the location of the short stay cycle parking 
and type of cycle parking proposed. This should be in accordance with the London Cycle Design 
Standards. 
Crossrail 2 
47
It is expected that Kingston will benefit from longer trains and a greater frequency of 
services from 2030 as a result of the proposed alignment for Crossrail 2 via Kingston station. A key 
page 7 

objective of the CR2 business case is around the delivery of new homes and jobs. Through 
increased accessibility and additional services it is envisaged that development can be maximised 
through intensification around CR2 stations and along the route. This should be borne in mind in 
the design of new development in Kingston, to support future users of the site to make sustainable 
travel choices.  
Travel and delivery service plans 
48
Office travel plan should be secured, monitored, reviewed, and enforced through the s106. 
A delivery and servicing plan and a construction management plan (CMP) should be secured by 
condition   
Local planning authority’s position 
49
Kingston Council have held pre-application discussions with the applicant and have issued 
guidance on the proposals. This indicates support for an office led scheme, but seeks retail floor 
space on the ground floor and raises issues with the design and heritage impacts.   
Legal considerations 
50
Under the arrangements set out in Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of 
London) Order 2008 the Mayor is required to provide the local planning authority with a statement 
setting out whether he considers that the application complies with the London Plan, and his 
reasons for taking that view. Unless notified otherwise by the Mayor, the Council must consult the 
Mayor again under Article 5 of the Order if it subsequently resolves to make a draft decision on the 
application, in order that the Mayor may decide whether to allow the draft decision to proceed 
unchanged, or direct the Council under Article 6 of the Order to refuse the application, or issue a 
direction under Article 7 of the Order that he is to act as the local planning authority for the 
purpose of determining the application. There is no obligation at this present stage for the Mayor 
to indicate his intentions regarding a possible direction, and no such decision should be inferred 
from the Mayor’s statement and comments. 
Financial considerations 
51
There are no financial considerations at this stage. 
Conclusion 
52
London Plan policies on land use, heritage and design, access, energy, flood risk  and 
transport are relevant to this application. Whilst the principle of the application is could be 
supported in strategic planning terms, it does not fully comply with the London Plan. The following 
changes might, however, lead to the application becoming compliant with the London Plan: 
• Principle of development: The loss of existing housing is a concern and this must be
addressed. The proposed office use is supported in accordance with the London Plan
and the draft London Plan.
• Design and heritage:  The development will cause harm Kingston Old Town
Conservation Area and the design should be subject to further independent design
review given issues raised in relation to building height, massing and elevation detailing
• Access: The applicant should demonstrate compliance with London Plan Policy 4.5 and
provide more detail on the inclusive access features of the building as this appears to
have been omitted from the DAS.
page 8 

• Sustainable development: Further verification information is required regarding
energy and flood risk to be in compliance with London Plan policies.
• Transport: Enhancements to the public realm should be secured as part of the
application. The car free nature of the proposals is welcome, but further cycle parking
should be provided in compliance with the draft London Plan and the applicant should
demonstrate how blue badge parking needs are met off-site. Office travel plan, delivery
and service plan and construction management plan should be secured
for further information, contact the GLA Planning Unit: 
Juliemma McLoughlin, Chief Planner 
@london.gov.uk 
John Finlayson, Head of Development Management  
page 9 

Mayor’s Planning & SDS Meeting 
18 March 2019, 14:30-16:00 
Room 8.7 
Agenda 
declarations of interest 
The Mayor is reminded to make the appropriate oral declaration if he has any personal or prejudicial interests 
(as defined in the GLA Code of Conduct) in any item either at the start of proceedings, or before the matter 
is discussed, or when it becomes apparent to him at the meeting. 
Planning Application – Stage II 
Item 
LPA 
Ref 
CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
LB 
 
 
 
 
S:\Planning Decisions\Mayor's Meetings\2019 Mayor's Meetings\03.2019 (18 March meeting)\18 March 2019 
Meeting Agenda.docx 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
S:\Planning Decisions\Mayor's Meetings\2019 Mayor's Meetings\03.2019 (18 March meeting)\18 March 2019 
Meeting Agenda.docx 

Planning Application – Stage II – delegated decision 
Item 
LPA 
Ref 
CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Planning Application – Stage I 
Item 
LPA 
Ref 
CO 
14 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
16 
20 Eden Street, Kingston 
Kingston upon 
5014 
JA 
Redevelopment to provide eight storey office 
Thames 
building 
17 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
S:\Planning Decisions\Mayor's Meetings\2019 Mayor's Meetings\03.2019 (18 March meeting)\18 March 2019 
Meeting Agenda.docx 

21 
Former BBC Sports Ground, New Malden 
Kingston upon 
4842 
COS 
Redevelopment to provide two storey sports 
Thames 
training building and a security building 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
AOB 
Item 

CO 
23 
Mayoral CIL Update 
TfL 
S:\Planning Decisions\Mayor's Meetings\2019 Mayor's Meetings\03.2019 (18 March meeting)\18 March 2019 
Meeting Agenda.docx 

Document Outline