Minutes of the Planning Committee held on 23 September 2010 TO FOLLOW.

The minutes of the meeting held on 23 September 2010 were approved as a correct record of proceedings and the Chairman authorised to sign them.

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

09/3118/COU - PETERSHAM VILLAGE HALL, BUTE AVENUE, PETERSHAM

Councillor Miller declared a prejudicial interest in this item by virtue of serving on the same governing body as the applicant. He undertook to withdraw from the committee and to leave the room for the duration of the item.

09/2530/FUL - LAND REAR OF 23-29 HEATHSIDE, WHITTON

Councillor Jaeger declared a personal interest by virtue of being acquainted with Mrs Morgan-Anstee, who was speaking against the application. She had not previously discussed the application with her.

10/0814/VRC - 48 WALDEGRAVE PARK, TEDDINGTON

Councillor Jaeger declared a personal interest by virtue of living in the parallel street to Waldegrave Park. She was not an adjoining neighbour and could not see the application site from her own property.

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.

Partial change of use of existing village hall (Class D1) to allow the continued use of the basement as fitness centre (Class D2).

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

Having declared a prejudicial interest, Councillor Miller withdrew from the room for the duration of this item.

The Development Control Officer introduced the item, reported the following amendments, and clarified a further amendment to condition U34616:

Amend condition U34616 to be personal to the applicant, now to read:

“This permission shall enure for the benefit of Katie Cannon only and for only such period of time as she may be occupying the premises, the permission shall not enure for the benefit of the land nor of any other person (s) and upon expiration of this use the property shall revert back to its previous use as a Village Hall.

REASON: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and neighbours.”

Amend condition U34618 to amend hours of use on Saturdays, now to read:

“Customers of the Class D2 fitness centre use hereby permitted shall not be present on the premises during the following times:

A.         Monday-Friday inclusive - before 09:30 and after 21:15

B.         Saturday and Sunday - before 10:00 and after 16:00

A notice to this effect shall be displayed at all times on the premises so as to be visible from outside.

REASON: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the amenities of nearby occupiers, or the area generally.”

The Development Control Officer reported the receipt of further correspondence:

Further letter from Christian Leigh, a planning consultant, objecting on behalf of local residents on grounds of impact on parking, impact of additional traffic on Bute Avenue and Sudbrook Lane, impact on local residents. Mr Leigh draws attention to potential level of usage, lack of parking in the local vicinity and disturbance in a quiet corner of the conservation area. Mr Leigh suggests that the Travel Plan is inadequate, that the proposal will result in the loss of a community facility, that the suggested personal and limited period planning conditions are inappropriate and that the conditions generally fail to mitigate the impact of the fitness centre use.

The Committee heard representations from Mr Davis, Mr Leigh, the Reverend T Marwood, Mr Strebel and Councillor Williams who spoke as an interested Councillor.

It was RESOLVED that the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report and subject to the following additional informative and amendments to conditions:

Informative:

Over the duration of this temporary planning permission, the applicant and the residents of Bute Avenue are urged to enter into discussion in order to find a solution to parking and traffic issues on Bute Avenue.

Amendments to conditions:

U34649   Restriction on use

The part of the premises hereby permitted for Class D2 purposes shall be used only as a fitness centre and for no other purpose whether or not within Use Class D2 as specified in the schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, or in any provision revoking or re-enacting that order.

REASON: To safeguard the amenities of nearby occupiers and the area generally.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27a

Erection of 8 new dwellings comprising of 6 no. 3 bed houses and 2 no. 1 bed flats.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION, subject to the

completion of a Section 106 Agreement

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and reported the receipt of additional correspondence:

One email from Councillor Alan Butler who was unable to attend the meeting but expressed support for the residents who were opposing the application. Councillor Butler made the following comments:

“You will note from the papers that the inspector granted permission for a maximum of 7 units. This application exceeds this nominated figure. The current application would raise the density of the development to 61u/ha which local residents, my ward colleagues, Cllr John Coombs, Cllr Bill Treble and I all consider to be an overdevelopment of the site.

The current planning permission approved for this site was granted with a density of 54 u/ha. The London Plan indicates residential location densities of this kind should have a density between 35 and 55 u/ha. Why should this current application exceed this recommendation? We feel that it should not.

Back garden developments are a great cause of concern to local residents causing anger and frustration and this long running saga has taxed the good will of our residents and I ask the committee to reject this current application.”

The Committee heard representations from Mrs Morgan-Anstee and from Councillor Coombs who spoke as an interested Councillor.

It was RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

(i)                  U34949 Reason for refusal - overdevelopment

The proposed development by reason of its design, number of units, excessive coverage of hard landscaping and lack of opportunity for sufficient soft landscaping would result in undue increase in vehicular activities and an overspill of car parking onto Atherley Way, an over intensification of use and an inappropriate form of overdevelopment of this backland site detrimental to the character and appearance of the locality.  The proposal would thereby be contrary to policies HSG11 and 12 and BLT 11 and 13 of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Unitary Development Plan First review 2005 and Core Strategy Policy CP7 and Supplementary Planning Documents for Small and Medium Housing Sites and London Plan Policy 4B.1.

(ii)                U34957 Reason for refusal - POS

In the absence of a binding obligation securing an appropriate financial contribution towards the provision of education, health, transport and other social infrastructure (the public realm), the proposal would place an unreasonable demand on existing local facilities and would be contrary to the principles of sustainable development and the adopted Planning Obligation Strategy 2005 and policies HSG 19, CCE10, TRN 2 and 12 of the London Borough of Richmond Unitary Development Plan First Review 2005, CP16, CP18 and policies 3A.5, 3A.9, 3A.10, 3A.11, 3A.18, 3A.24, 3C.1, 3D.11, 3D.12, 6A.4 and 6A.5 of the adopted London Plan 2008.

Retention of condensers on the external wall of the beer store.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer presented the item. There were no changes to make to the report.

The Committee heard a representation from Mr Barber.

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

Change of use from class B1(business use) to a mixed B1 use to ground floor with a two bedroom flat above, incorporating a two storey side and rear extension.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the report and made the following additions and corrections:

Paragraph 11 to be amended so that last sentence reads “This should be landscaped in accordance with details approved by the condition LT09, with an informative added advising that the forecourt landscaping should be undertaken in such a manner to prevent parking in this location.”

Non-Standard Informative added, which reads: “INFORMATIVE: You are advised that the forecourt area to the front of the ground floor commercial unit does not have consent and is not appropriate for the parking of a vehicle. When the details are submitted in support of discharging Condition LT09, the landscaping should be provided in such a manner as to provide space for refuse/recycling and cycle storage and not allow for the parking of a motor vehicle to occur.”

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

Additional letter of objection from occupants of no.30 re-iterating previous reasons for refusal.

No representations were heard.

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

Removal of Condition U24473 (Level 6 Code for Sustainable Homes) attached to planning permission dated 26 January 2009 for the demolition of existing house and erection of five bedroom house and study with partial basement (reference 08/4049/FUL).

Officer’s recommendation: PERMISSION

The Development Control officer presented the report and made the following correction:

Amend revised/replacement condition to read:

‘The construction of the house shall be completed and retained thereafter in accordance with the details and works outlined in the following documents: Letter entitled ‘Variation of condition Code 6’ dated 22 March 2010 and received by the Council on 24 March 2010; Sustainability Checklist Document received 9 June 2010; Letter to Mr and Mrs Jarvis from Mr Ironmonger dated 13 May 2010; Code for Sustainable Homes Pre Assessment Estimator Tool BREGLOBAL results document; Code for Sustainable Homes: Design – Final; Regulations Analysis: Design – Final: Checklist: Design – Final; SAP Worksheet: Design – Final; and Predicted Energy Assessment; unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of achieving a sustainable form of development.’

The Committee heard a representation from Mr Jarvis.

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