Minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 12 November 2009 TO FOLLOW.

The minutes of the meeting held on 12 November be received and approved and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

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

Councillor Elengorn declared that he would leave the Chair and the Meeting during application 08/4839/FUL (Land at Bell Lane and Water Lane, Twickenham) as correspondence which he had entered into some time ago might be viewed as implying a risk of predetermination.

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.

Variation of condition BD08 attached to planning permission ref.no.05/1899/HOT to allow for the retention of zinc roof instead of the use of roof tiles to match the existing.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

The application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report and the following condition:

• That the dark paint covering to the zinc roof be always kept and maintained permanently.

[The Committee heard a representation from Mr Hughes]

Retention of metal frame, attached to the rear of the house covering patio area.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

The application be DEFERRED prior to the meeting.

Erection of three 2-storey buildings with basement to form 4 x 1-bed.Flats and 4 x 2-bed. Houses, 9 basement car spaces, bike stores and recycling stores.

Officer’s recommendation:  REFUSAL

The application be REFUSED for the reason’s set out in the officer’s report and on grounds of an unacceptable level of overlooking.

[The Development Control Officer reported the receipt of the following:

• 5 further letters from nearby residents repeating earlier objections, with further objections based on; the flawed nature of the Sustainability statement; the underground car park and car lift raising issues of safety, ventilation, noise and flood risk, the type of dwellings not being needed (witness the empty units in the Wallorton Gardens development), the loss of garden space, and  overlooking (diagonally) to Grosvenor Avenue and across Avenue Gardens.  

• An extract from means of escape design guidance for underground car parks, submitted on behalf of the SOS residents, stating that the escape distances and layout would not meet statutory standards. (Officer comment: this is a Building Regulations matter)  

• A letter received from Zac Goldsmith (prospective parliamentary candidate) writing again in support of the SOS Avenue Gardens residents. He comments that the amendments are only superficially different from earlier proposals which were rightly rejected by local Planners. He considers it another example of inappropriate development, would result in loss of parking, the underground car park and development would be out of character, there would be a loss of privacy, loss of light, loss of trees, lack of consultation with residents.

·         A letter relating to application 08/4483, the Mortlake With East Sheen Society observe that in this (the Avenue Gardens) application, the extensive use of obscure glazing would give rise to unacceptable living conditions for the occupiers, but also that the extent of obscure glazing was insufficient to prevent unacceptable overlooking to the rear.]

Representations were heard from Mrs Claudia Mortimore, Ms Gillian Ward and Ms Jenny Osborn.  Councillor True also spoke as an interested Councillor. Susan Kramer MP had registered to speak against the application but had to leave before it was reached.]

Demolition of existing property (one dwelling split into 2 flats) and erection of.new building comprising of 5 flats, cycle store, bin store and parking space.

Officer’s recommendation: PERMISSION,

and Conservation Area Consent be GRANTED

subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement

(1)   The recommendation be NOT adopted.

(2)   The application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

·         That the design was too dominant in relation to the street scene and was harmful to the character and appearance of the conservation area and to the setting of the neighbouring building of townscape merit at no.24.

·         The proposal would result in an unacceptable loss of light to the ground floor flat at no.22 Sheen Gate Gardens.

 [The Development Control Officer reported the receipt of the following:

• E-mail from Councillor Urquhart, advising that she is unable to attend Committee due to another engagement, but wishes the following views to be made known:

Conservation Area Consent: does not accept the recommendation because the contemporary design does not complement the street scene in this particular location. The integrity of this part of the Sheen Gate Gardens Conservation Area is being challenged by officer recommendations to approve buildings that are out of scale with the existing. This modern 4 storey cube will be completely out of character with surrounding Edwardian buildings and will set a precedent that she would not wish to see dominant in this particular location.

Planning permission:  the application should be refused on grounds of design and appearance in the street scene of the conservation area, therefore failing policy BLT 2 of the UDP.

• Letter from Mortlake With East Sheen Society (dated 23 November 2009), reiterating that the increased footprint of the building would result in unacceptable overlooking, loss of privacy and loss of light, contrary to policies BLT 2, 11, 15 and 16. They also understand that the cycle store at the rear will result in an additional loss of light for no.22. The Society also refers to its letter of 4 February 2009, which objected to the increased footprint on an undersized plot, considering it to be overdevelopment to the detriment of the conservation area and the amenities of surrounding residents. There would also be overlooking and loss of light to neighbouring residents at 22 and 24 Sheen Gate Gardens and 9 Firs Avenue.

• Letter from occupier of neighbouring property objecting on design grounds, stating that this modern design does not blend in with the character of the conservation area.

Representations were heard from Ms Attwood, Mr Bennett, Mr Paton, Mr Lovegrove and Councillor True who spoke as an interested Councillor.]

Details pursuant to condition U21667 – Details of refuse, recycling and cycle store last part of condition to be discharged. (Original application: Alteration of 2 semi detached properties into 9 flats with side and rear extensions.)

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

The application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report.

The retention of a timber boundary fence along the northwest and southwest elevations of the land adjoining 1 River Reach. The fence is constructed of closed board panels approximately 1.8m in height with a 0.30m trellis on top.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

The application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report.

[The Development Control Officer informed the Committee that the reference to the ward as Teddington on the first page of the report was incorrect and should read Hampton Wick; also the incorrect application number 2375 should be 2032.]

Erection of 2 two and a half storey houses; one five bed / eight person house and one four bed / seven person house.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

The application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report and an additional condition and informative as follows:

• Prior to the commencement of development, a scheme for external lighting to the property fronting Water Lane, and the alley between the Bell Lane property and the rear boundaries of Church Street, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The houses shall not be occupied until the approved lighting scheme is installed, and shall thereafter be retained.  REASON:  To protect the amenities of nearby occupants.

• Additional informative:

The applicants are encouraged to position the flue on the Water Lane property away from the access leading to No. 7 and 9 Water Lane, and the side alley between the Bell Lane property and the boundaries of Church Street.

[The Development Control Officer reported the receipt of the following:

Two late letters covering:

o        Compromise access to properties in Church Street

o        Location of refuse store

o        Comprise access for deliveries

o        Consistency of planning decisions

o        Houses ‘squashed’ in

Add ‘100% affordable housing’ in proposal description.

And added the following conditions:

1.  Prior to the commencement of development, a scheme shall be submitted demonstrating the properties being designed to Life Time House standards.  The development shall only be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme.  REASON:  To ensure an appropriate mix of properties.

2.  No refuse shall be stored in the area to the north of the property in Bell Lane, other than the area identified as ‘unsecured bin store for adjoining commercial units on Church Street’.  REASON:  To preserve the amenities of neighbouring occupants.

Additional informative:  Whilst the Council has a land ownership interest in the application site, the proposal has been considered and dealt with by the Council in its separate role as Local Planning Authority entirely on its planning merits and fully in accordance with the requirements of the national planning system.

Para 33, line 2, replace ‘on-street’ with ‘off street’.

Para 25.  With reference to the side windows on No.8, one is a staircase (non-habitable), the other is a secondary window to the living room.  This correction does not alter the recommendation.]

Having declared a perceived risk of predetermination of the matter Councillor Elengorn left the Chair and the meeting for the duration of this item. Councillor Mumford was elected to the Chair for this item.

Representations were heard from Ms Hockie, Mr, Quigley, Mr Chapman and Mr Hinsley.]

Amendment to listed building consent 06/2014/LBC (Demolition of two existing lean to garages and construction of single storey building and renovation and repair of disused Mayors garage to form print room facility.  New gate and railings, increase in height on boundary wall and new hard landscaping and new air condensing unit).  Revised internal alterations to facilitate an alternative internal layout, and amendments to fenestration.

Officer’s recommendation:  That the Committee recommends that

Listed Building Consent be GRANTED

subject to no adverse direction from

the Secretary of State.

The application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report.

[The Development Control Officer reported the receipt of the following:

• English Heritage:  The drawings are considered satisfactory, and our authorisation or direction, dated 10^th August 2006 is still valid.  This application should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of your specialist conservation advice.

• Whilst the Council has a land ownership interest in the application site, the proposal has been considered and dealt with by the Council in its separate role as Local Planning Authority entirely on its planning merits and fully in accordance with the requirements of the national planning system.

And made the following correction to the report:

• Para.13, 7th line, replace ‘new objections’ with ‘no objections’.]

Demolition of existing site buildings and garages and the erection of 7 x 4 bedroom houses and a three storey apartment block comprising 20 residential flats, consisting of 2 x 1 bedroom flats, 15 x 2-bedroom flats and 3 x 3-bedroom flats with 27 car parking spaces (100% affordable housing).

Officer’s recommendation:  Had an appeal not been lodged against

the non determination of the application, it would have been APPROVED

subject to the completion of a S106 securing 100% affordable housing.

(1)   That the recommendation NOT be adopted,

(2)   that the application be REFUSED for the following reason:

The proposal, by reason of its density, form, height, mass and area of site coverage, by buildings, access road and hard surfaced parking, would represent an overdevelopment of a restricted site detrimental to:

a). the established character, spacing and pattern of development within Vincam Close and the area as a whole thereby detracting from the visual amenities of the locality

b). the level of amenity space available to future occupants of the development, in particular young children for whom there is poor access to outdoor play opportunities.

The proposal is therefore contrary to policies ENV1, BLT 11, 13, 16 and HSG 11 and 18 of the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames Unitary Development Plan:  First Review 2005, policies 3A.3, 3A.6 and 3D.13 of the London Plan and Supplementary Planning Document 'Design Guidelines for Small and Medium Housing Sites', 'Design Quality' and Supplementary Planning Guidance 'Providing for Children and Young People's Play and Informal Recreation' (Mayor of London).

[Representations were heard from Mr Harper and Councillor Jaeger as an interested Councillor]