Agenda and minutes

Minutes of the Planning Committee held on 16 December 2010 TO FOLLOW.

The agreement of the minutes of the meeting held on 16 December 2010 was deferred until the following meeting for clarification of item 42a.

Members are asked to declare any interests in matters for consideration at the meeting.

10/3309/HOT & 10/3310/HOT - 1 SYDNEY ROAD, RICHMOND

Councillor O’Malley declared that he had already formed a view and was pre-determined on these applications. He reported that he would be speaking as an interested Councillor and undertook to withdraw from the Committee for the duration of these items.

Reports of the Development Control Manager attached – see list below.

The recommendations contained in the attached reports are those of the officers and are not binding upon the Committee.

The Chair will determine the order in which the attached reports are to be heard at the start of the meeting. Members are asked to note that there will be an adjournment of the meeting for a period of approximately 10 minutes starting at a convenient time between 9.00 and 9.30pm.

Change of use from a single dwelling house to a non-residential day nursery, refurbishment and modernisation of the existing groundsman’s house, adjacent club room and first floor changing rooms to provide nursery accommodation, construction of a single storey extension to provide a classroom, WCs and fully accessible WC.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and made the following amendments to the report:

• Page 4 Condition U36202; 3^rd line; delete ‘2’ & insert ‘22’ December
• Page 5 Condition U36196 1^st line; insert after ‘MacLeod’ ‘/Steven McNicol’
• Page 5 Condition U36197; 1^st line; insert after ‘day nursery ‘from Monday to Friday’ & at end of condition add ‘..& only for children’s parties at the weekends’
• Page 5; Condition U36199; 1^st line; delete ‘persons’ & delete ‘20’ & insert ‘30’.
• Page 5; Condition U36200; ‘B’ delete ’15.00 & after 17.00’ & insert ;’14.30 & after 17.30’ & delete sentence beginning ‘A notice …’

The Committee heard a representation in support of the application from Mrs MacLeod, the applicant.

A representation was heard from Councillor Urquhart, who spoke as an interested Councillor.

The Committee noted that there was a shortage of day nurseries in the Barnes area and that in this respect the proposal would meet the needs of the community. It was clarified that though the proposed permission was not limited to a set time period, condition U36196 would mean that the planning permission was personal to the applicants. The property would revert back to its original use once the premises were no longer occupied by the applicants (though it would be open to another party to apply for planning permission to continue the use under another name).

It was RESOLVED that the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report.

Side and rear ground floor extensions and the enlargement of the existing basement to include front and rear light wells.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and reported the receipt of the following representations:

• 4 emails received reiterating objections to the amended proposals

The Committee heard representations against the application from Mr Briggs and Mrs Briggs who were adjoining neighbours.

The Committee heard representations in support of the application from the applicant, Mr Horncastle and the architect, Mr Massey.

The Committee considered the impact of the side extension on the neighbouring property; 20 Westmoreland Road. Concerns were raised over whether the side extension would be overbearing and would result in a loss of light at number 20. Though the Committee would need to reach a decision on the development proposal before them, it was noted that a similar side extension could be undertaken within the permitted development rights of number 22 Westmoreland Road. It was also viewed that loss of light would not be a sustainable reason for refusal as the windows in the flank wall at number 20 were not main habitable room windows.

The Committee discussed the height and bulk of the proposed extensions, their proximity to neighbouring properties and their visibility from the street. It was noted that the ground floor extensions were of modest size in relation to the overall footprint of the existing house. It was also clarified that the side extension would be visible at the front but as this was not a conservation area and similar infill extensions had been carried out to nearby properties the extension was viewed as acceptable.

It was RESOLVED that the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report.   

Change of use of verge to residential land within the curtilage of no.31 Manor Road.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

Councillor Nicholson declared that she had visited the site.

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and reported the following addition to the report:

• Full description of condition LT10 is as follows:

“The use hereby approved shall not commence until such time as details of soft landscaping treatment have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, such details to  include planting plans, written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment) and shall specify the quantity, density, size, species, position and the proposed time or programme of planting of all shrubs, hedges, grasses etc, together with a schedule of landscape maintenance for a minimum period of 5 years from the date of completion of the landscaping scheme has also been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.  The schedule shall include details of the arrangements for its implementation and shall be implemented as approved from the date of completion of the landscaping scheme as part of the development.

The agreed landscaping shall be carried out as part of the development hereby approved.

REASON: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the appearance of the locality and to preserve and enhance nature conservation interests.”

The Committee heard a representation in support of the application from Mr Heath, the applicant.

The Committee discussed the existing use of the land and considered that the proposed change of use would not have a negative effect on highway safety. The Committee were satisfied that the landscape condition LT10 would safeguard the visual amenities of the site.

It was RESOLVED that the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives as set out in the officer’s report.   

Details to discharge conditions U30114 (location of trees), U30117 (Soil compaction), U30118 (Tree planting) and U30119 (Landscaping) pursuant to planning permission for erection of part single storey rear and side extension, part two storey side extension, part three storey side extension into roofspace. Change of use of verge to residential use and erection of boundary fence (09/2836/FUL).

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

 The Development Control Officer introduced the report and made the following amendment:

• Delete unnecessary informative IL10A

The Committee heard a representation in support of the application from Ms Storer-Taylor, the applicant.

The Committee discussed the planting scheme and the retention of existing trees. It was noted that the Council’s Aboricultural Officer was satisfied with the proposals and it was considered that the landscaping would enhance the visual amenity of the site.

It was RESOLVED that the application be APPROVED subject to the informatives set out in the officer’s report. 

Demolition of rear extension to Claridge House and garages.Construction of new retail unit, first floor and second floor offices (2 units), first floor and second floor residences (5 units), plant space ancillary to retail unit. Removal of existing vehicle crossover, provision of new pedestrian access.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION, subject to the completion

of a Section 106 Agreement & Conservation

Area Consent be GRANTED

Councillor Morris and Councillor Nicholson declared that they had visited the site.

The Development Control Officer introduced the report. There were no late representations or amendments.

The Committee heard representations against the application from Mr Wilkins, a neighbour not adjoining the site and from Ms Nichol, the Town Centre Manager (for Barnes).

The Committee heard a representation in support of the application from Mr Smith, the agent.

A representation was heard from Councillor Stockley who spoke as an interested Councillor.

The Committee discussed the application in light of application 08/0262/FUL, under which a similar scheme had been granted permission in May 2010. The Committee focused on the UDP Policy TC3, and whether the development of further retail space would have an adverse effect on existing retail centres. The Committee noted the concerns of the speakers in relation to the number of vacant shops in Barnes, but were mindful of the recommendations of the Council’s policy officers and the GVA Grimley 2009 retail study update which concluded that further retail development could be supported in Barnes.

The Committee discussed the application in relation to planning policy DMTP8. It was advised that though there had been a change in parking policy since May 2010 (when the previous application had been approved) there had been no change to retail parking standards.

Concerns were raised that the additional retail space would require increased levels of servicing and that this would have a detrimental impact upon the highway traffic. However, it was noted that the proposed section 106 agreement required a review of loading, unloading and parking once the unit had been occupied, and the timeframe for this could be lengthened. The Committee also considered that a Traffic Management Plan could be used to address servicing concerns.

It was RESOLVED:

(i)                  that the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report, subject to the completion of a section 106 agreement and subject to the following additional amendments:

·        NS02 replaced with the following condition entitled ‘Servicing Management Plan’:

NS02: No development shall take place until a Servicing Management Plan, which provides for the parking of delivery & maintenance vehicles visiting the premises, the loading & unloading of goods at the site & the hours during which deliveries to & servicing of the premises shall take place, has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Committee, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved Servicing Management Plan shall come into effect from the first occupation of the retail premises for trading purposes & shall be permanently retained thereafter. Reason: to ensure a safe & satisfactory form of development particularly with regard to highway condition.

·        The Section 106 Agreement be amended in order that the review of loading, unloading and parking in the site vicinity be carried out within six to nine months after occupancy of the retail unit.

·        Additional informative:

NI04 With regard to condition NS02 it is unlikely the Council will agree to vehicles servicing the site if they exceed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45e

Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of a new detached house. 

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the report and made the following amendment:

• DV48 – Approved Drwg Nos delete ‘#0911:P:11D and 0911:P:12C#’, insert ‘#0911:P:11E and 0911:P:12D received on 05/01/2011’

The Committee heard a representation against the application from Mr Bell, an adjoining neighbour.

The Committee heard a representation in support of the application from Mr Watton, the agent.

The Committee noted that the distance between the proposed development and the neighbouring properties complied with the Council’s adopted guidance ‘Small and Medium Housing Sites.’ The building design and materials were discussed. The Committee was satisfied that these would be appropriate for the location of the property, which was adjacent to a conservation area. It was also noted that the proposal met the Council’s sustainability requirements.

It was RESOLVED that the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report.

Retrospective application for erection of a parapet roof on top of existing brick boundary wall at rear.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

Having declared that he had predetermined the application and would speak as an interested Councillor, Councillor O’Malley withdrew from the Committee for the duration of this item.

The Development Control Officer introduced the item. There were no late representations or changes to the report.

The Committee heard a representation in support of the application from Mr Stephens, the applicant.

Councillor O’Malley spoke as an interested Councillor.

The Committee concurred with the conclusion set out in the officer’s report, that the parapet was not unacceptably out of keeping with the street scene and was not an un-neighbourly development.

It was RESOLVED that the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report. 

Retrospective application for front and side boundary planting boxes.

Officer’s recommendation:  REFUSAL,

ENFORCEMENT ACTION

& COURT ACTION (in the event of non-compliance)

Having declared that he had predetermined the application and would speak as an interested Councillor, Councillor O’Malley withdrew from the Committee for the duration of this item.

The Development Control Officer introduced the report and made the following amendments:

·        Remove last sentence from reason for refusal.

·        Add BLT16 to reason for refusal

·        Enforcement reason should be same as refusal

The Committee heard a representation in support of the application from Mr Stephens, the applicant.

Councillor O’Malley spoke as an interested Councillor.

The Committee were mindful of the fact that the property was located within Sheen Road Conservation Area. It was noted that the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document: ‘Front Gardens and Other Off-Street Parking Standards’, recommended that that materials used within the front gardens of conservation areas should complement the colour and texture of the house and the surrounding street scene. It was advised that properties in Sydney Road were characterised by their low-level front boundary treatments. The Committee were concerned that the scale and design of the side boundary planter boxes would be incongruous with neighbouring frontages and would harm the character of the conservation area.

It was RESOLVED:

(i)                  that the application be REFUSED for the reason set out in the officer’s report.

(ii)                that ENFORCEMENT ACTION be taken, for the reasons set out in the officer’s report, to remove the side boundary planters, to reinstate original boundary treatment and to paint the existing front boundary planter a dark matt grey colour. The colour must have been previously submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Period for compliance: 56 days from the date the Notice takes effect.

(iii)               that COURT ACTION be taken in the event of non-compliance with the Enforcement Notice