To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Morris.

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.

11/1170/FUL - 6 TRAFALGAR ROAD, TWICKENHAM

Councillors Chappell, Elengorn, Linnette and Naylor declared that they had visited the site, but not discussed the matter with anyone while there.

11/1873/FUL - 6 TRAFALGAR ROAD, TWICKENHAM

Councillors Chappell, Elengorn, Linnette and Naylor declared that they had visited the site, but not discussed the matter with anyone while there.

10/1095/FUL and 10/1210/CAC - SYDS QUAY AND SANS SOUCI, EEL PIE ISLAND, TWICKENHAM

Councillor Jaeger declared that he knew one of the objectors (Mr Betteridge), but she had not discussed the matter with him.

Councillor Naylor declared that he knew two of the objectors (Mr Betteridge and Mr Tyson), but he had not discussed the matter with them.

Councillors Jaeger, Linnette and Naylor declared that they had visited the site, but not discussed the matter with anyone while there.

11/2554/TEL – side of 422 Richmond Road, Cambridge Road, Twickenham

Councillor Naylor declared that he had visited the site, but not discussed the matter with anyone while there.

To consider the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 18 August 2011. TO FOLLOW

The minutes of the meeting held on 18 August 2011 were agreed as a correct record of proceedings and the Chairman was authorised to sign them.

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.

Construction of a new semi-detached dwelling.

Officer’s recommendation:  OPEN (refer to report)

Councillors Chappell, Elengorn, Linnette and Naylor declared that they had visited the site, but not discussed the matter with anyone while there.

The Development Control Officer reported that he had received a detailed response on the Council’s report from the applicant’s consultant, which had been circulated to the Committee in advance of the meeting.

It was noted that the main purpose of the consultant’s response was to highlight errors, indicate that the applicant felt certain areas of the report were misleading and to state that they felt the recommendation option for refusal was flawed.

The report examined potential reasons for refusal in relation to the:

·         other approved two storey side extensions in Trafalgar Road

·         alleged impact upon 4 Trafalgar Road

·         previous prosecution

·         site description

·         Conservation Area Enforcement Notice

·         pre-application advice

·         heritage issues

·         proposed basement

·         mechanism for securing implementation; and

·         ‘without basement scheme’ on the agenda

The Development Control Officer responded to the points raised by the applicant and their consultant via the addendum:

• Many of the matters of substance raised were solely due to a difference of planning judgment
• A factual error in the officer’s report was corrected, which related to the date on which permission for a side extension to 8 Trafalgar Road was granted.  This was amended to July 1991, which was after the adoption of the Trafalgar Road Conservation Area Guidelines in 1979, with the adopted guidance still a material consideration.  Other extensions at variance with the guidelines were approved in the 1980s at 17, 21 and 28 Trafalgar Road, each having a ‘step-out’ to reintroduce design symmetry on semi-detached houses
• The recommendation to reduce the “implementation period” to 6 months related solely to the commencement of any building works approved under this application.  It also reflected the enforcement notice’s period of compliance which required substantial completion of the development within 10 months
• The period of sentence in the event of non-payment of the fine was agreed by the judge in the prosecution case as being 21 months imprisonment, as opposed to 2.5 years as mentioned in the officer’s report

The Development Control Officer reported receipt of the following late letters: 

a)      Dr Vincent Cable MP confirmed that the applicant had visited him at his surgery.

b)      8 Trafalgar Road was objecting on the following grounds:

·         The application should be viewed as entirely new, with previous consents not setting a precedent

·         Contentious sections of the application (such as the basement) should be withdrawn to allow for a speedy resolution to issues now present on the site

·         Overshadowing

·         Inclusion of a skylight

·         The proposed floors and ceilings should align with those at 8 Trafalgar Road in order to have a symmetrical outward appearance

·         No detailed survey of 8 Trafalgar Road had been carried out, in order to ensure the design would be translated to 6 Trafalgar Road

·         Letters of support from personal connections of the applicant should be given lesser weight (not a material planning consideration)

c)      4 Trafalgar Roadreferred to the results of a questionnaire  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24a

Construction of a new semi-detached dwelling and associated parking and landscaping works.

Officer’s recommendation:  OPEN (refer to report)

Councillors Chappell, Elengorn, Linnette and Naylor declared that they had visited the site, but not discussed the matter with anyone while there.

The Development Control Officer drew attention to the previous item, stating that the main difference between this application and the one before was the omission of a basement and loft room.

The committee heard representations in favour of the application from Des O’Carroll and Graham House.  Councillor Allen spoke as an interested councillor.

The Committee felt that this application had not overcome the concerns it held with the previous one.

It was RESOLVED that had an appeal against the application not been lodged, it would have been REFUSED for the following reason:

“The proposed house, by reason of its siting, scale, design and combined frontage width with No.8 Trafalgar Road, would appear a large and imposing building out-of-proportion to the other nearby historic houses which combine to create the special character and appearance of this part of the Trafalgar Road Conservation Area and from which it would hence detract as well as the setting of adjacent listed building at No.4 Trafalgar Road. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies BLT 2, 3, 4 and 13 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan: First Review, Core Strategy policy CP7 and the emerging Development Management: DPD policies DM HD 01, 02 and DC 01BLT 2, 3 and 11 of the emerging Unitary Development Plan: First Review, Supplementary Planning Documents: Design Quality and Small and Medium Housing Sites.”

Development: Demolition of the existing buildings and erection of a 2-storey building to replace Syds Quay comprising 4 no. B1 use class units and 3 no. 1-bedroom flats, one studio flat and a 2-bedroom dwelling to replace San Souci.

Officer’s recommendation: PERMISSION, subject to the

completion of a legal agreement;

Conservation Area Consent be GRANTED

Councillor Jaeger declared that she knew one of the objectors (Mr Betteridge), but she had not discussed the matter with him.

Councillor Naylor declared that he knew two of the objectors (Mr Betteridge and Mr Tyson), but he had not discussed the matter with them.

Councillors Jaeger, Linnette and Naylor declared that they had visited the site, but not discussed the matter with anyone while there.

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

1.      Letter from a resident of Thames Eyot and a member of the River Thames Society raising the following points:

• Individual small boat use should be encouraged and protected
• The proposal was very damaging from the point of view of the river
• Supports the letter from River Thames Society on 26 May 2010
• The officer’s report was misleading in stating that putting a tidal Thames boatyard out of use by converting it to offices and residential, would cause “no demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance".  This was because river and river-related uses (such as boatyards) were interests of acknowledged importance on the tidal section of the Thames and the loss of a boatyard would cause demonstrable harm to all boat-users on the tideway,  who needed boatyards to maintain their vessels.  This sentence in the report also ignored the policies (ENV 26 - ENV 33, particularly ENV 31) for the River Thames in the Council's Unitary Development Plan which stated that riverside facilities including boat building sheds should be retained
• "Interests of acknowledged importance" were wider than the river and the river-related uses referred to in the Council's river policies and should include general community health and welfare associated with recreation, including river recreation
• The second paragraph of the "summary of application" made no reference to the river, nor did it give any indication that the river was a relevant consideration for the application.
• The report failed to adequately address the issues related to the change of use from B2 to B1
• A blanket B1 use for the new development would have a detrimental effect on the river related activities which the inspector’s report said was a valuable activity in this location
• There was an obligation to retain the site for river related uses, in a practical sense, such as providing a clear and unimpeded access way to the river

The Development Control Officer clarified the present use of the site – B1 was in respect of the building; C3 was in relation to the existing dwelling; and B2 was the last lawful use of the slipway.

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

·         Replace paragraph 2 of the “Summary of Application” and paragraph 58 with the following:

“The proposal, given the lawful use of the building for B1 purposes not directly related to river based industry, to the maintenance of an element of river-related activity on the slipway, it is considered that, on balance, the proposal would be acceptable in land use terms and given the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24c

Siting of two 1.6m (h) x 0.45m (w) x 1.2m (l) green telecommunications cabinets: PCP002 and PCP004.

Officer’s recommendation:  NO OBJECTION

11/2263/TEL – The Vineyard, side of 35 Mount Ararat Road, Richmond

The Development Control Officer reported receipt of a late representation which raised the following points:

·         An adjoining wall was crumbling and would be inaccessible, which could present danger to pedestrians

·         The unit was unsightly, especially when seen in conjunction with an existing parking meter

It was RESOLVED that NO OBJECTION be raised, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report.

11/2554/TEL – side of 422 Richmond Road, Cambridge Road, Twickenham

Councillor Naylor declared that he had visited the site, but had not discussed the matter with anyone while there.

It was RESOLVED that NO OBJECTION be raised, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report.