To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillor Elengorn who was substituted by Councillor Miller.

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.

12/0290/VRC - FLAT 1 PARK VIEW, HAMPTON COURT ROAD

Councillor Nicholson declared that she had pre-determined her view on this application. She undertook to withdraw from the Committee for the duration of this item.

07/3167/DD11 - TEDDINGTON SCHOOL, BROOM ROAD, TEDDINGTON

Councillor Churchill declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item by virtue of the fact that she was a governor at Teddington School. She undertook to withdraw from the Committee and the room for the duration of this item.

To consider the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 29 March 2012 TO FOLLOW.

The minutes of the meeting held on 29 March 2012 were received and approved and the Chairman 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.

Variation of Condition application to remove condition DV43A (Parking Permit Restriction) of planning application approved under 11/3011/VRC to allow a residents parking permit for flat 1.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

Having declared that she had predetermined her view, Councillor Nicholson withdrew from the Committee for the duration of this item.

The Development Control Officer introduced the item; there were no late amendments to the report.

It was noted that an adjoining neighbour had registered to speak against the application, but due to unforeseen circumstances had been required to leave the meeting. Accordingly his objections were considered as summarised in the officer’s report.

The Committee heard a representation in support of the application from Mr Evans, the applicant.

The Committee considered the points raised by the speaker and information provided by the Development Control Officer and the Transport Officer. Members considered the availability for parking spaces in the area as indicated by the parking survey. It was noted that parking stress level would still be less than 90% and that there had been a decline in the number of business permits issued.

It was RESOLVED:

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

Refurbishment and extension of the existing dwelling at no.79 Richmond Road; the demolition of the existing shop and associated office and storage outbuildings located to the rear of  the site and the erection of new B1/D1 employment units with dedicated, gated pedestrian and cycle access, and the erection of a three bed detached dwelling house with road frontage.

Officer’s recommendation: PERMISSION

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

Add condition: Prior to the commencement of development, details (siting / sections / elevations) of the photovoltaic panels shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The development shall only be implemented in accordance with the approved details.  REASON:  To preserve the character, appearance and setting of the site and area in general.

Add condition:  No residential unit approved as part of this application shall be occupied until the D1 / B1 units to the rear of the site are structurally completed and ready for occupation.  REASON:  To ensure the development does not result in the unacceptable loss of employment floorspace.

·         NS05:  After “carried out”, add “at the B1/D1” use.

·         NS04:  Add rear first floor bathroom to No. 77, and first floor side bedroom window to No. 77

·         Remove DV46A and NS06 – the commercial new build is below 100m², and therefore BREEAM excellent is not necessary.

Add after para. 73: The new rear D1 / B1 unit is positioned to the rear of No. 81-85.  Whilst the rear B1/D1 unit will come closer to these boundaries and up to 0.3m higher than existing, by reason of the existing relationship, modest increase in bulk, screening, length of gardens, and pattern of development this is not deemed so demonstrable as to warrant a refusal.

No speakers were heard.

The Committee considered the information provided in relation to the application. It was noted that there would be a reduction in the overall commercial floorspace as part of this proposal which was regrettable. However, the Committee considered that the proposal provided a viable solution to a site which was in decline, and provided improved commercial floorspace.  The refurbishment of the existing building and the provision of residential housing were welcomed, subject to the retention of commercial floorspace (as secured by a condition).  The condition of the existing buildings to the rear of the site was brought to Members’ attention through photographs. 

It was RESOLVED:

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

Reserved matters application for back shields to floodlights [condition U18963] and lopping of trees on northside of pitch [condition LA02A].

Officer’s recommendations:  U18963: Open recommendation

LA02A: Permission

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

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and explained the context of the applications (one of which was a deferred item). It was explained that a site visit had been carried out with Committee Members on 16 April 2012,lead by the Development Control Officer. Other Members had also visited at other times. During the visit Committee Members had not met with the applicant nor with any objectors.

The following correspondence had been received since the publication of the officer’s report:

5 neighbours continue to object to both parts of the application for the following reasons:

• no further consultation with residents has been carried out regarding mitigation
• lights have not been turned off at 21.00 following Planning Committee recommendation
• other matters have not been assessed e.g. noise disturbance; health and safety issues
• requests for meetings and suggested compromise not been acted upon
• 4 hour reduction of lights totally inadequate
• applicant’s reports on ecology fundamentally flawed and contrary to Natural England advice
• back shields fitted wholly inadequate and visually intrusive
• cutting of trees will increase light spillage; increase noise and the danger of hockey balls from going into adjoining gardens

Sport Richmond, The London Playing Fields Foundation, Teddington Hockey Club, Richmond Rugby Club, Whitton Netball Club, Harlequins Amateur Rugby Club, Archdeacon Fathers’ Football Club and 26 individual writers support the application, subject to a significant caveat, as follows:

• back shields and fence, plus planting are effective to minimise harm

• but turning the lights off at 21.00 will have serious consequences for many users and is completely contrary to what was originally approved. Many clubs/individual will suffer including older participants coming back into sport.

• no discussion with users about changing the hours as proposed

• LBRUT has one of the very highest sports participation rates in the country and this is a retrograde step

• Policy DM OS 8 of the DMP seeks to increase use of sports facilities and the loss of hours will be contrary to that

• loss of amenity to a few neighbours greatly outweighed by facilities for a huge number of people

• cutting back overhanging branches will not impact on neighbours but improve lighting and thus safety on the pitch

The Committee heard representations against the applications from Mr Patel and Ms Gornall, who were adjoining neighbours. The Committee also heard a representation against the applications from Dr Tania Mathias, a Councillor who was speaking as a resident.

[Having declared a prejudicial interest owing to the proximity of her property to the application site, Councillor Mathias withdrew from the room after speaking.]

The Committee heard a representation in favour of the applications from Mr Dodds, Head of Culture and Service Improvement at the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames, on behalf of the applicant. The Committee also heard representations in favour of the applications (but against proposed condition NS01, as set out in the officer’s report under U18963) from Mr  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4c

Conversion of existing laundrette into an office and laundrette. Proposed single storey rear extensions and erection of a 2m brick wall to boundary. Installation of new shopfront.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

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

·         at Paragraph 9 delete the whole sentence & insert  ‘An advertisement consent application will be required for the signage’

·         delete condition NS01

·         delete second ‘..is…’ & insert ‘..may be…’ in NI01

·         delete Reason for NI02

The Committee heard a representation in support of the application from Mr Rajinder Khosa, on behalf of the applicant.

The Committee considered the points raised by the speaker and the information provided. Members discussed the proposed mixed use and layout of the site. Members did not consider that there was any harm in the application that would warrant a refusal.

It was RESOLVED:

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