To receive any apologies for absence.

No apologies were received.

In accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct and the Planning Protocol, Members are requested to declare any interests orally at the start of the meeting and again immediately before consideration of the matter. Members are reminded to specify the agenda item number to which it refers and whether the interest is of a personal or prejudicial nature.

Members are also asked to declare whether they have been subject to lobbying from interested parties, if they have carried out any site visits and whether they have predetermined their view on any item to be considered.

Members are also reminded of the requirements of Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 that they should declare and not vote on specified matters if they are two months or more in arrears with their Council Tax payments.

10/1906/FUL - 17 CHURCH STREET, HAMPTON

Councillor Cardy declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item by virtue of being the Council’s nominee on the board of Richmond Housing Partnership: a potential beneficiary of the Affordable Housing Fund which this application would contribute to. He undertook to withdraw from the room for the duration of this item.

Councillor Roberts declared a personal interest in this item by virtue of being a resident of the adjacent street. He declared that he did not reside in the immediate vicinity of the application site and had not formed a prior view on the application.

10/3748/FUL - TWICKENHAM PREPARATORY SCHOOL, 43 HIGH STREET, HAMPTON

Councillor Cardy declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item by virtue of being a Trustee of Hampton Fuel Allotments and the fact that this application site was in close proximity to the offices of the charity. He undertook to withdraw from the room for the duration of this item.

10/3161/FUL - HAMPTON COMMUNITY COLLEGE, 122 HANWORTH ROAD, HAMPTON

Councillor Cardy declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item by virtue of being the Council’s nominee on the board of Richmond Housing Partnership and the fact that this application site was in close proximity to property owned by RHP. He undertook to withdraw from the room for the duration of this item.

To consider the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 14 April 2011 TO FOLLOW.

The agreement of the minutes of the meeting held on 14 April 2011 was deferred until the following meeting to allow Members ample time to examine them due to their length.

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 Chairman will confirm the order in which the attached reports are to be heard at the start of the meeting. Members are asked to note that there may be an adjournment of the meeting for a period of approximately 10 minutes starting at a convenient time from 8.30pm.

Demolition of existing houses and construction of two three storey detached houses with integral garages.

Officer’s recommendation:

REFUSAL and

Refusal of Conservation Area Consent

Councillor Harborne was not present for this item.

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

·         The applicants have written (letter tabled) setting out why, in their view, the application should not be refused on reason (Parking).

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

·         Reason for refusal (Flooding) amended as follows:-

‘The application site lies within Flood Zone 3a (High Probability) and partly within Flood Zone 3b (Functional Floodplain) as defined by PPS 25. The proposed floor level of the development would fail to meet the minimum requirement outlined in the Council’s adopted Strategic Flood Risk Assessment, which is also the Environment Agency’s general requirement. No further design has been explored which would be able to achieve the required floor level. Therefore the applicant has not adequately demonstrated that the development will be safe for the lifetime of the development, taking into account climate change. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy ENV 34 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan; First Review 2005, Policy CP 3 of the Adopted Core Strategy 2009; DM SD 6 of the Development Management Development Plan Document Publication Version (2010); The Approved Council Strategic Flood Risk Assessment 2010; Policies 4A.12 and 4A.13 of the London Plan (2008); Policy 5.12 of the Consultation draft replacement London Plan (2009); and PPS 25 (part a and c of the Exception Test).’

·         Para 7 - recommended ‘to’ the committee not ‘by’

·         Para 28 - paragraph ‘16’ above not ‘15’

The Committee heard representations against the application from Ms McNuff and Mr Colley, who were neighbours not adjoining the site.

The Committee heard representations in support of the application from Mr Pemberton, a neighbour; Mr Finch, the applicant; and Mr Dodds, the agent.

The Committee considered the information received and points raised by speakers. In particular, the following points were considered:

(i)      The proposal now satisfied the Council’s sustainability criteria.

(ii)    The advice of the Environment Agency was that the application should be considered in relation to the Council’s own flood risk policy and this application did not meet the policy. Though the proposed floor levels had been raised in comparison to the previous application for this site, the scheme still did not meet the finished floor level height that had been recommended by the Council’s Strategic Flood Risk Assessment, agreed with the Environment Agency.

(iii)   Though the footprint of the buildings were comparable to the previous proposal, the increased height and scale could be viewed as unneighbourly and appear overbearing with regard to number 22 Broomwater West

(iv)  Given that the size of the houses would significantly increase, the proposal did not meet the car parking requirements of the emerging policy DM DPD.

It was RESOLVED:

(i)      That the application for planning permission (10/3153/FUL) be REFUSED for the reasons as set out in the officer’s report and amended above, and for the following additional reason:

The proposal involves an unneighbourly development, which by reason of its scale, height  ...  view the full minutes text for item 75a

Conversion of vacant chapel building into two residential dwellings.

Officer’s recommendation: PERMISSION, subject to the

completion of a legal agreement

Having declared a prejudicial interest, Councillor Cardy withdrew from the room for the duration of this item. Councillor Elengorn was not present for this item.

The Development Control Officer reported that there had been no additions or amendments to the report.

No representations were heard.

The Committee considered the information received and noted the following points in particular:

(i)        The proposal did not meet all the criteria of the Council’s parking policies and on-street parking was limited in this area. However, the physical limitations of the application site would not allow for off-street parking.

(ii)       The property was currently vacant and in a state of disrepair. Restoration of the site would improve the visual amenity of the area. The Committee felt that as the property was a Building of Townscape Merit and situated within a conservation area, it would be preferable for features of the building such as the lettering on the building’s façade to be retained.

(iii)     Though the property had a potential for roosting bats, the ecological survey had found that there was no evidence of bats at this site. Conditions were being proposed to address ecological concerns.

It was RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report, subject to the completion of a legal agreement, and subject to the following additional informative:

·         In carrying out the conversion, the applicant is encouraged to retain the lettering (Wesleyan Church) on the building’s rear façade in order to retain the character and historic interest of the building.

Demolition of four temporary buildings. Erection of one single storey building to provide two new classrooms, three music practice rooms and a fully accessible disabled wc.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

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

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

·        7 rather than 6 neighbours’ objections had been received.

·        Additional condition: ‘The four temporary buildings shall be removed within 3 months of occupation of the new building hereby approved.

Reason: In the interest of the character of the conservation area and setting of the listed building.’

The Development Control Officer reported that an objector to the application had requested that the item be deferred as she was unable to attend the Committee. The Committee considered this request but declined to defer the item for this reason. It was noted that the views of neighbouring objectors would be represented by registered speakers.

The Committee heard representations against the application from Mr Illingworth, a neighbour adjoining the site, and Mr Baker, a local resident.

The Committee heard representations in support of the application from Mr Boobyer, the Architect, and Mr Malam, the Head Teacher of the school.

The Committee considered the information received and points raised by speakers. In particular, the following points were discussed:

(i)      Though neighbours were concerned that the proposed development was significantly larger in scale than the existing temporary building, the Committee felt that proposal did not represent an overdevelopment of the site and the scale was acceptable within the setting. 

(ii)    It was recognised that the design of the proposal and its siting next to Sheridan Place was a concern of neighbours. However, the design was viewed as acceptable given the secluded location of the building and the possibility of encouraging hedge growth to screen the building, which the applicant could be encouraged to carry out via an informative. 

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:

·        Informative: The applicants are requested to supplement and enhance the boundary planting along Sheridan Place to provide further screening to the music building.

Construction of a single-storey side extension, as a continuation of the existing extension, and a small glass extension to the rear to provide a home study, together with moving of garden wall out towards the boundary.

Officer’s recommendation: PERMISSION

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

·         2 representations received reiterating opposition to moving the boundary wall with the consequent loss of planting, although noting some improvements have been made to the application.

The Committee heard representations against the application from Dr Barrett and Mr Green, who were neighbours not adjoining the site.

The Committee heard a representation in support of the application from Ms Duffey, the applicant.

The Committee considered the information received and points raised by speakers. In particular, the following concerns were discussed:

(i) It relation to policy DMH02, Members were advised that the application did not consist of in-fill or back-land development as no new dwelling was to be created.

(ii) The Committee were mindful of the site’s close proximity to a conservation area. They discussed the relatively uniform design of the streetscene and the open landscaped character of the verges along the length of Hawkesley Close.

(iii) Members of the Committee were concerned that the character of the streetscene would be negatively impacted by the proposals and that a precedent could set for the enclosure of open landscaped verges.

It was RESOLVED:

1. That the recommendation be NOT adopted

2. That the application be REFUSED for the following reason:

NS01: The proposed development would result in the part loss of open landscaped land which forms part of the pleasant character of this small estate. As such it would be harmful to the visual amenities of the area contrary to policies BLT 14 of the Unitary Development Plan & DM DC 4 of the Development Management Plan.

Part re-development of the site, including demolition of existing buildings and erection of new school buildings and facilities with associated new car parking provision, cycle storage, tree works and landscaping.  Provision of temporary classrooms and a temporary construction access.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

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

Councillor Elengorn was not present for this item.

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

·        Page 39: Change name in description to ‘Hampton Academy’

·        Para 33. Delete ‘cream’ & insert ‘white’

·        Page 47; delete condition NS01 [superseded by condition NS12]

·        Page 51; delete IL16F, IL19 & IX03

The Development Control Officer reported receipt of the following comments:

·        Cllr Samuel notes the road is very busy with three schools & commuter traffic especially at peak times & requests stringent conditions be applied to ensure safety of pupils etc during & after construction occurs.

The Committee heard a representation in support of the application from Dr Demont, the Head Teacher of the school. The agents, Mr Pyrah and Mr Hyams, were present in support of the application and answered questions from the Committee.

The Committee considered the information received and points raised by speakers. The following points were discussed:

(i)      The proposal allowed for the retention of a number of existing mature trees in order to provide acceptable levels of soft landscaping and to address previous concerns raised on this issue.

(ii)    Classrooms and other educational facilities would be enhanced by the proposals, which were welcomed by the Committee. There would be no loss in classroom number.

(iii)   Members of the Committee felt that the scheme would improve the landscaping and visual amenity of the site.

It was RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report (as amended).

Redevelopment of the site including demolition of existing buildings and the erection of a new academy building, new sports facilities building and floodlit all weather pitch with associated car parking, cycle storage, new service yard entrance, tree works and landscaping and the provision of temporary classrooms.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

Councillor Elengorn was not present for this item.

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

·        Page 60; delete NS01 [superseded by NS07]

·        Page 61; NS09 insert ‘wall’ for ‘roof’ in 3 places

·        Page 63: substitute NS16 as follows; ‘The area indicated as over spill parking shall be made available for that purpose on such occasions that shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority’. Same reason.

·        New condition NS17 Notwithstanding the floodlighting details submitted with the planning application details of the luminaries, lux levels & light contour plans shall be submitted to & be approved by the Local Planning Authority before this part of the permission is implemented. Such details shall be adhered to at all times. Reason; to protect the amenities & safety of the area.

·        Page 59; condition DV48 ;delete ‘72/0007698 102B, 103B, 101B, 301A’ & insert ‘LB SPH 0001A, 72/0007698-111F,112F, 1113F,131E, 132E, 133E, 311C,331B received 26 April 2011’

·        Page 60; Condition NS04 modified to allow details to be agreed on phase 2 of the construction method statement.

·        Page51; delete IL16F, IL19 & IX03

The Committee heard a representation in support of the application from Mr Jones, the Head Teacher of the school.

The Committee considered the information received and the points raised by the speaker. In particular, the following issues were discussed:

(i)      Conditions NS06 and NS17 related to the floodlights to be used within the proposals. There had been no objections from residents in relation to these proposals and columns would be no taller than 8m.  However, the Committee were mindful of the importance of consulting residents once further details of the luminaries, lux levels and light contour plans had been received in order that the lighting caused minimal harm to nearby properties.

(ii)    The Committee felt that it was important that the Travel Plan met the requirements of the local community as well as school users. The Committee felt than Condition NS02 should be the subject of public consultation.

(iii)   An ecological survey had been carried out and any ecological concerns would be addressed by the proposed conditions.

(iv)  English Heritage expressed no concern regarding the application providing that condition NS14 was complied with.

(v)    Though it would be possible to add further PV panels to the building, the current proposals met the Council’s sustainability criteria.

It was RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report (as amended) and subject to public consultation on the following conditions:

·        NS02 – Travel Plan: local residents will be consulted on the travel management plan and if no agreement can be reached the plan will be referred to planning committee

·         NS17– Floodlighting: local residents will be consulted on the floodlighting and if no agreement can be reached the floodlights will be referred to planning committee