Image (C) Cube Real Estate. View from corner of Kingston Hall Road & St James’ Road

This is a rather technical article and for those short of time it has a TL:DR (Too Long;Didn’t Read) and then the full length article following.

At Lever House, a new application 26/01718/NMA seeks to amend the 2021 permission for up to 16 storeys and 115 homes at 3 St James’s Road. The change would alter the order in which key planning documents are submitted, allowing the Design Code and the first detailed application to be prepared and considered at the same time rather than the Design Code being agreed first. KingSoc has objected.

What the current condition does – Before the developer submits detailed drawings, it must first prepare a Design Code setting the ground rules on form, materials, landscaping, wind, sunlight and other matters, and Kingston must approve it in writing. The logic is simple: Kingston agrees the design rules first, then the detailed building is brought forward using those rules.

What the developer now wants – The applicant wants the Design Code and the first detailed application submitted together rather than sequentially. That may sound administrative, but the order matters. Under the current arrangement, Kingston can judge the detailed scheme against a Code already agreed. If both arrive together, Code and building are discussed and amended side by side. Kingston still has the final say, but the Code is no longer an independent yardstick and the building design can drive the design code rather than the other way around.

Why now – The permission requires detailed applications within five years, with a deadline of 2 December 2026. As things stand, the Design Code must be prepared, discussed and approved before the first detailed application can be lodged. Allow both to be submitted together and the developer no longer needs the Code signed off in advance to meet that deadline. The practical benefit is clear from the wording.

Why KingSoc has objected – A Non-Material Amendment under Section 96A is meant for changes that do not materially affect the permission. The applicant argues the scheme is unchanged in physical terms, with the same site, homes and storeys. Our concern is with the planning control itself. At present, Kingston agrees the rules before it sees the detailed scheme. Under the amendment, it would not. That may affect the finished building including materials, massing, landscaping and how the building sits within its surroundings and the conservation area.

We are asking Kingston to treat the change as material and keep the Design Code where the 2021 permission put it: agreed first, then applied to the detailed scheme. Planning often turns on small words, and here much of Kingston’s design control sits inside the word “before”.

SAL -SHORT ANSWER LONG!

Sometimes the small print matters – Civic societies spend plenty of time on the visible things, the skyline, a much-loved building or a development that is plainly too large for its surroundings. Occasionally, though, we have to get down into the machinery of planning, where something that looks like a minor procedural adjustment can have rather larger consequences. That is what has happened at Lever House. Application 26/01718/NMA seeks to alter one condition attached to the 2021 outline permission for up to 16 storeys and 115 homes at 3 St James’s Road. It does not concern the newer Lever House proposal recently presented to the Society. The application is described as a Non-Material Amendment. In practical terms, the important change is from “before” to “at the same time as”. KingSoc has objected.

Why the Design Code matters – National planning policy, through the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), places increasing emphasis on achieving well-designed places rather than simply controlling land use. In that context, design codes have become an important tool. The NPPF encourages local planning authorities to use design codes to set clear expectations for quality, form and character at an early stage, before detailed proposals become fixed. Done properly, a Design Code gives Kingston the opportunity to say what good development should look and feel like before detailed proposals harden into fact. At Lever House the Code covers building form and scale, materials, amenity, landscaping, wind and sunlight. Anyone who reads enough planning applications may occasionally wonder how much weight phrases such as “responding to local character” can really carry. A useful Design Code should do something more demanding – it should help shape the building rather than merely explain it afterwards.

What the present condition does – The 2021 permission requires the Design Code to be submitted to Kingston and agreed in writing before the first Reserved Matters application is submitted. The sequence has a clear logic. Kingston agrees the framework first and then considers the detailed design against it. The applicant now wants the Code and first detailed application to be submitted concurrently. That may sound like administrative tidying, but it changes the relationship between the two. Imagine the present arrangement working as intended. Kingston agrees a Code setting expectations for form, materials, landscaping and other important matters. The detailed design then arrives and officers can point to that previously agreed framework if parts of the scheme fall short. If both arrive together, the conversation becomes more fluid. Kingston still retains control and can insist on changes, but the Code and the building can now evolve alongside one another. A rulebook agreed beforehand provides an independent benchmark. A rulebook being negotiated alongside the thing it is meant to govern inevitably has rather less independence.

Why make the change now? – There is also a practical benefit for the applicant. The original permission requires Reserved Matters to be submitted within five years, with the deadline falling on 2 December 2026. At present the Design Code must be prepared, discussed and formally approved before the first detailed application can be lodged. Allow both to be submitted together and that prior stage no longer has to be completed before the deadline. We do not need to speculate about motive because the advantage follows directly from the proposed wording. For Kingston, however, there is a potential loss of leverage. Once a detailed scheme has been designed, engineered, costed and submitted, considerable momentum has gathered behind it. Agreeing the Code beforehand gives the Council an earlier opportunity to establish its expectations while a wider range of design choices remains genuinely open.

Why KingSoc has objected – The applicant argues that the amendment is non-material because the broad development remains unchanged, with the same site, number of homes and number of storeys. That is true, but our concern is with the planning control rather than the physical dimensions. At present Kingston agrees the rules before the detailed scheme arrives. Under the proposed amendment, it would no longer have to. Whether that difference is legally significant enough to make the amendment “material” is for the Council to decide, but we think it deserves rather more scrutiny than a simple procedural change. KingSoc has therefore asked Kingston to refuse the amendment and retain the sequencing contained in the 2021 permission. Planning conditions can look like small print, but occasionally a great deal rests on a very small word. At Lever House, that word is “before”.