Minutes of the Planning Committee held on 18 February 2010 TO FOLLOW.

The minutes of the meeting held on 18 February 2010 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.

10/0077/FUL - 1 GLEBE ROAD, BARNES

Councillor Urquhart declared a personal and prejudicial interest by virtue of being a registered patient at the GP practice. She undertook to withdraw from the room for the duration of the item.

10/0101/FUL - PAVILION, PALEWELL COMMON DRIVE, EAST SHEEN

Councillor Trigg declared a personal and prejudicial interest by virtue of being the Cabinet Member for Traffic, Transport and Highways. He undertook to withdraw from the room for the duration of the item.

09/3287/HOT & 09/3288/HOT - 19 MONTPELIER ROW, TWICKENHAM

Councillor Trigg declared a personal interest in these items by virtue of being an Interested Councillor.

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.

First floor extension and loft extension to provide additional consulting rooms and office.

Officer’s recommendation:  REFUSAL

(1)   The recommendation be NOT adopted.

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

• The benefits of the proposal in securing the provision of additional community health care facilities are considered to outweigh the impact of the proposal on the amenities of neighbouring residential occupiers and on the character and appearance of the building, the street scene and the Barnes Green Conservation Area.

The Committee added the following conditions:

• Obscured glazing to be used for windows in the side and rear elevations.
• Details of cycle storage to be provided.
• Restriction on parking permits for occupiers of the accommodation.

[The Committee heard representations from Dr Botting, Mr Davies, Dr Plant, Ms Rothwell and Mr Wheeler. Having declared a personal and prejudicial interest, Councillor Urquhart was not present for the duration of this item.]

Refurbishment and modernisation of the existing pavilion building comprising public toilets, changing room, club room and groundsman’s house plus an extension to form a café and change of use of the existing vacant groundsman’s house, ground floor club room and part first floor changing rooms to a 3 / 4 bedroom, 2 storey single dwelling house.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

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

[Having declared a personal and prejudicial interest, Councillor Trigg was not present for the duration of this item.]

The proposal is for the alteration of condition U08052 of planning permission 05/3062/FUL for alteration to the approved length of west facing wall, to allow one east-facing window to be openable.

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 reported the receipt of the following additional correspondence:

• Further letter from a neighbouring occupier raising a further ground for objection relating to noise, in the context that the application property has been the subject of a Noise Abatement Notice.

The Committee heard a representation from Mr Senn.]

Erection of a freestanding mail box adjacent to existing lamp post.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

(1)   The recommendation be NOT adopted:

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

• The mail box, by reason of its design and location, would be an unwelcome and unsightly intrusion in the street scene and would increase clutter on a narrow pavement, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the Petersham Conservation Area.

The Committee added the following informative:

• The applicants and objectors should work together to find an alternative solution to the issue of postal delivery at these properties.

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

• Further letter from neighbouring occupier suggesting an additional condition to ensure that the mailbox is used only as a mailbox and for no other purpose.

• Correspondence from Councillor David Williams, stating the following:

“I am not able to be at the Planning Committee on 4 March, otherwise I would have asked to speak as the ward councillor on this application. I would be grateful if this letter could be read out or given to members of the committee before they decide this application.

This application has arisen solely because of a dispute between neighbours which is nothing to do with the Planning Committee. If the owner of the gate giving access to 3&4 Vine Cottages will not allow a letter box in the gate, then the correct solution is to give the postman the same access to the properties as the owners and residents, using the keypad code to the lock on the gate. This is a common arrangement. This happens in Sheen Court, Sheen Road, Richmond, where the postman knows the “trades “ code on the keypads for the 200 flats operating up to noon. There is a similar arrangement for the block of flats called Mallard Court, 12 Petersham Road, Richmond. Also there are many properties without letter boxes, which those of us who deliver leaflets will know. Again anyone delivering to these properties will know how to contact the residents.

Allowing a postbox on the public highway seems an extraordinary step to take when completely unnecessary, and it sets a worrying precedent. The public highway should be for the benefit of the public, not private individuals.

This application should be refused on the grounds that it would be a potential danger on the public highway. I note that in the same sentence that the highway authority says it would not be a danger, they insist on public liability insurance in case it is! Petersham Road is a narrow main road with heavy traffic. The pavement at this point is only about four feet wide. Any additional clutter on this pavement is obstructive and potentially dangerous. The application should also be refused as it does not “preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area.”

If the committee feel unable to refuse, then the application should be deferred to enable a common sense solution to be found along the lines I have suggested or in some  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57d

Conversion of single dwelling into 2 semi detached dwellings.

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 reported the receipt of additional correspondence and information:

• Supplementary letter from an objector expressing the view that a proposed Draft DPD (currently out to consultation) advocates this development should not take place. (The DDPD in fact relates to protecting land to the rear rather than the property itself.)
• A neighbour telephoned to advise his recently constructed bungalow is not yet shown on the Agenda O/S extract.

The Committee heard representations from Mr Brewin and Mr Fergusson.]

Demolition of existing houses and erection of two three storey 5 double bedroom properties with integral garages.

Officer’s recommendation:  REFUSAL

09/3032/FUL: The application be REFUSED for the following reasons as set out in the officer’s report:

1)         The proposal, by reason of the absence of any evidence to demonstrate that the existing buildings are incapable of improvement or conversion to a satisfactory standard and thus in the absence of significant planning benefits, would represent an unsustainable form of development making inefficient use of urban land. The development would therefore be contrary to policies HSG2 and HSG11 of the adopted Richmond Upon Thames Unitary Development Plan First Review 2005 and policy CP1 of the Core Strategy and policies 4A.3, 4A.9, 4A.12 and 4A.13 of the London Plan.

2)         The site lies within the functional floodplain defined by PPS25 and the proposed floor level of the development would be likely to result in unnecessary risk of flooding. The applicant has not adequately demonstrated that the development will be safe, for the lifetime of the development, taking into account climate change and therefore the proposal would be contrary to policy ENV34 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan: First Review 2005, policy CP3 of the Core Strategy, policies 4A.12 and 4A.13 of the London Plan and PPS25 (part a and c of the Exception Test).

The Committee voted separately on the third reason for refusal as set out in the officer’s report, and resolved that this ground for refusal (set out below) was not justified and as such be deletedfrom the reasons for refusal:

3)                  The design of no.20, due to the height, bulk, scale and forward projection represents an unacceptable form of development which would not respect its context or setting and would be out of keeping with the streetscene and fails to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Broom Water Conservation Area thus contrary to policies BLT2 and BLT11 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan: First Review 2005 and policies 4B.1 and 4B.12 of the London Plan.

09/3036/CAC: The Conservation Area Consent be REFUSED for the reasons set out in the officer’s report.

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

• Applicants have submitted their presentation drawings along with an Energy Comparison Report (as this was received a day before the committee meeting there has not been time for the Sustainability Officer to review this in detail, other than to make a general comment that its basis is open to question).
• The Environment Agency, having received further clarification on the proposal, has revised its comments and now objects to the proposal on the grounds of flood risk.

The Committee heard representations from Mr Chapman, Mr Finch, Ms McNuff and Mr Richardson.]

Demolition of extension to the rear and side of existing gatehouse. Conversion of the gatehouse into a self contained dwelling. Erection of a new extension on pub footprints to be amalgamated with No.5 Park Road to form a single dwelling.  Demolition of garages and rear/side boundary wall, fenestration changes to No’s 3 and 5 Park Road. New boundary treatment. Extensions to No. 3 at ground, 1st and 2nd floor levels.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION and

Conservation Area

Consent be GRANTED

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

(2)        Conservation Area Consent be GRANTED.

[The Development Control Officer reported the receipt of an additional letter regarding maintaining privacy to flats at Heathshott, and consideration to landscaping.

The Development Control Officer made the following amendments to the report:

·         Point one in para. 5 – should read ‘public’

·         Para. 12, last sentence replace ‘2009’ with ‘2008’

·         Para. 14, first sentence, replace ‘2008’ with ‘2009’.

·         Para. 17, replace ‘expect’ with ‘except’.

·         Para. 23 – replace ‘sympathy’ with  ‘symmetry’

·         Para. 25 – Replace ‘must’ with ‘most’

·         Para/ 29, replace ‘renewal’ with ‘renewable’.

·         Add Ecohomes 2006 ~Assessment received on 16^th February to drawing numbers.

·         Alter DV45 to be ‘excellent’ rather than ‘very good’.

·         Add lift glazing to condition DV15

The Committee heard representations from Mr Hatton and from Councillor Bouchier who spoke as an Interested Councillor.]

Proposed mansard style roof extension to front and rear of the properties, consisting of 4 no.1 bedroom flats and conversion of existing office and storage space on first floor to 3 no.1 bedroom flats with access via external staircase. Proposed cycle and refuse storage and conversion of part of no.38 (ground-floor unit) from residential to retail use. Proposed removal of several outbuildings to the rear of the site with associated landscaping and installation of solar panels to the rear roof slope.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION, subject to the completion

of a Section 106 Legal Agreement

(1)   The recommendation be NOT adopted:

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

The proposed mansard roof, by reason of its siting, massing, height, unsatisfactory design and close proximity to site boundaries, would appear as a domineering and overbearing addition detracting from the appearance and small-scale character of the existing building and Collis Alley and to the current amenities of occupants of adjoining residential properties.  The proposal is hence contrary to policies BLT 2, 11, 13 and 16 of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Unitary Development Plan: First Review, policy CP7 of the Core Strategy and adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance: Design Guidelines for House Extensions and External Alterations.

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

4 late representation letters were received, 3 from previous objectors to earlier consultations and 1 from a new objector raising objections on the grounds of:

• Overlooking and loss of privacy
• Harm to neighbour amenity
• Traffic generation and parking problems
• Noise and disturbance
• Potential health hazard from proposed bin store
• Loss of existing tree and concerns that new trees will result in loss of light to gardens

The Development Control Officer made the following amendments to the report:

Amend condition NS04

Insert: 2006.1212.1102 Rev:D and 2006.1212.1101 Rev:C

Delete the section after IL 19 reading:

2006.1212.1108 Rev E (Currently 2006.1212.1108 Rev D), 2006.1212.1105 Rev D (Currently “006.1212.1105 Rev C), 2006.1212.1101 Rev B (Currently 2006.1212.1101 Rev A), 2006.1212.1102 Rev C (Currently 2006.1212.1102 Rev B)

Amend Informative IL12:

Delete #2006.1212.1101 rev B, 2006.1212.1102 rev C, 2006.1212.1106 rev E and 2006.1212.1105 rev D received 24^th February 2010#

Insert #2006.1212.1101 rev C, 2006.1212.1102 rev D, 2006.1212.1106 rev E and 2006.1212.1105 rev E received 25^th February 2010#

The Development Control Officer made the following additions to the report:

Additional condition:

U30890 - Car Club Membership-GRAMPIAN

Before the development hereby permitted begins a scheme shall be agreed in writing with the local planning authority and be put in place to ensure that for the lifetime of the units it shall be a member of a car club and that future occupiers of the units hereby approved will be eligible for membership of a car club for the lifetime of the building. The scheme shall be implemented as part of the planning permission.

REASON: To ensure that the development does not generate an increased demand for on-street car parking to the detriment of the free flow of traffic, the conditions of general safety along the neighbouring highways, the residential amenity of the area and to accord with the Councils car parking policy and standards.

Additional Informative:

U45283  - It should be noted that approved drawing number 2006.1212.1107 rev C on decision notice and within the committee report contains an error. Properties Numbers 44 and 46 The Green are marked as 46 and 48 The Green respectively. The decision has been made with these errors in mind and correctly identified these properties as numbers 44 and 46 The Green. The job title of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57h

Redevelopment of 139-141 Stanley Road, Teddington to provide replacement ground floor shop and eight flats (3 one-bed, 3 two-bed and 2  three-bed) on ground, first and second floors following demolition of existing shop, warehouse and flats.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION, subject to the completion

of a Section 106 Legal Agreement

The application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report, and subject to the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement.

[The Development Control Officer made the following amendments to the report:

• Amend informative IL12A to read: Approved Drawing Nos – ‘1734/001, 002, 005, 006, 007, 008, 010, 013 received on 21st August 2009; 009A received on 18^th November 2009; 011B, 012C, 014A, 015C and 016B’ received on 16th February 2010’.
• The correct ward is ‘Fulwell and Hampton Hill’ rather than ‘Teddington’.

The Committee heard representations from Mr Hunter and Mr Roxby.]

Retention of single storey rear extension.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

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

• The applicants are encouraged to provide trellis and associated planting on the south boundary wall with No. 20 Montpelier Row.

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

One additional letter of representation has been received from a neighbouring resident in relation to the application, reiterating opposition and requesting all correspondence be provided to the Committee for consideration.

The Development Control Officer made the flowing amendments to the report:

In the recommendation report omit “between” from paragraph 5. Should read “…the height above ground has increased from 2.10m as approved to 2.10m (where adjacent to no. 6 Chapel Road) and 2.40m (where adjacent to no. 20 Montpelier Row).”

Omit drawing 133E from informative IL12.

The Development Control Officer clarified that the assessment in relation to No. 20 was on the basis of a 2.4m high flank wall.

The Committee heard representations from Mr Escott, Ms Jones, Ms Regnaud and from Councillor Trigg, who spoke as an Interested Councillor. Councillor Trigg did not vote on this item.]

Retention of single storey rear extension, incorporating a reduction in the overall height of the glazed rooflight.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

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

• The applicants are encouraged to provide trellis and associated planting on the south boundary wall with No. 20 Montpelier Row

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

One additional letter of representation has been received from a neighbouring resident in relation to the application, reiterating opposition and requesting all correspondence be provided to the Committee for consideration.

The Development Control Officer made the flowing amendments to the report:

In the recommendation report omit “between” from paragraph 5. Should read “…the height above ground has increased from 2.10m as approved to 2.10m (where adjacent to no. 6 Chapel Road) and 2.40m (where adjacent to no. 20 Montpelier Row).”

The Development Control Officer clarified that the assessment in relation to No. 20 was on the basis of a 2.4m high flank wall.

The Committee heard representations from Mr Escott, Ms Jones and from Councillor Trigg, who spoke as an Interested Councillor. Councillor Trigg did not vote on this item.]

Proposed change of use to the existing building comprising part HMO and part self contained units to provide 5 No.1 bedroom flats, a 1-bedroom self contained unit and 2 No. 2 bedroom flats, consisting of side and rear extensions and associated works of demolition and construction.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION, subject to the completion

of a Section 106 Legal Agreement

The application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report, and subject to the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement.

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

• 5 Late letters received reiterating the objections mentioned within paragraph 5.  In addition to this several letters cite a recent example of when the fire service could not turn in the cul-de-sac due to the parked cars there.

The Development Control Officer made the following additions to the report:

Additional Grampian condition: No development shall take place until details of a scheme have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority to ensure that, in the event of a Controlled Parking Zone coming into operation within the next 5 years, occupants of the units will not be eligible for resident parking permits.  The scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

REASON:  To ensure against oversubscription in the event of the creation of a Controlled Parking Zone.

Additional condition:  Prior to the commencement of development, the existing porch shall be removed, as shown on drawing number D04A.

REASON:  To comply with the terms of the application sought and to ensure that the development enhances the character and appearance of this BTM and the setting of the conservation area.

Additional Condition:  That all new hardsurfacing shall be porous and constructed and laid out in accordance with details to be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: In the interest of sustainable construction and to avoid excessive surface water run-off.

Additional condition: DV15 - Window obscure glazed-No openable~~ insert ‘first floor’ and ‘south east elevation’.

The Development Control Officer made the following amendments to the report:

• Revision to recommendation to read as PERMISSION subject to the applicant completing a Section 106 Agreement to secure:

1. The provision of and making available for use of the house in multiple occupation (4 non self contained units) at 19 Richmond Road pursuant to planning permission ref 09/2063/FUL or any amendment thereto prior to the commencement of development at 30 Belmont Road for residential purposes and thereafter to retain the HMO use notwithstanding any subsequent legislative changes which may permit it reversion to an alternative use, including a single family dwelling house.

2. Lifetime car club membership for all residential units to be provided at 30 Belmont Road.

The Committee heard representations from Ms Bigland, Mr Keppe and Ms Thurston.]