To receive any apologies for absence.

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

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.

10/1526/FUL - INLAND REVENUE, RUSKIN AVENUE, KEW

Councillor Linnette declared that he held a predetermined view on the application and would withdraw from the Committee for the duration of the item.  He would speak instead as an interested Councillor.

11/3572/COU - RIVER THAMES VISITOR CENTRE, RIVERSIDE, RICHMOND

Councillor Naylor declared that he knew the applicant but that he had not discussed the application with him nor formed a view on the matter.

Councillor Mathias declared that she know the applicant, as a previous Conservative Party Candidate but had not discussed the application with him nor formed a view on the matter.

12/0067/VRC - PETERSHAM NURSERIES, PETERSHAM ROAD, RICHMOND

Councillor Miller declared that he held a predetermined view on the application and would withdraw from the Committee for the duration of the item.  He would speak as an interested Councillor.

To consider the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 8^th March 2012

The minutes of the previous meeting held on 8^th March 2012 were agreed as a correct record and the Chairman authorised to sign them on behalf of the Committee.

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.

Erection of two 5-storey and four 4-storey buildings comprising 97 self-contained flats (use class C3), 4,645 sqm floorspace to be used as a care home (use Class C2) and 1,388 sqm commercial floorspace (use class B1 and A1/A3), landscaping and associated car parking at basement level.

Officer recommendation: PERMISSION

Having declared himself to be pre-determined on the matter Councillor Linnette withdrew from the Committee for the duration of the item.  Councillor Naylor, Vice Chairman, took the Chair in his absence.

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and reported the following written representations, amendments and an additional condition received or made by officers following publication of the agenda.

(i)                       Further representations:

·                 Kew Residents Association   stated the following:

That they understood that this important site would be developed. A proposal that was proportionate, of some design merit and sensitive to the location would not be resisted. Despite the previous appeal decision, there were still grounds to resist this scheme, and there would be no risk of costs (awarded against the Council) if refused on planning grounds. There were grounds to reject this application due to it being over-dense, parking, schools capacity, health costs, overbearing, ugly and inadequate affordable housing. It was also noted that planning officers recommended the 2009 scheme for approval and the committee refused it
[Officer note: the 2009 scheme was refused under delegated powers]   

·               Cllr. Burford objected to the application due to;  Size, bulk, bland design, lack of real ‘green’ or eco sustainability measures, parking, traffic flows at Mortlake Road junction,  loss of privacy, pollution, visual intrusion, noise and disturbance, failing to reflect Kew character and neighbouring Edwardian/Victorian houses.

·               32 further letters were received from residents objecting to the scheme on grounds previously listed in the report.

·               A further objection letter raised concerns about national guidelines for standards in care homes (room sizes, medical and other specialist health services) and the cost of providing health professional cover.

·               2 letters of support were also received.

(ii)                     Amendments

·                                                                           With regard to the penultimate paragraph of the ‘conclusion’ of the report (Page 27), it should be noted that, although the Terms of the Unilateral Undertaking had been agreed, it had not yet been signed. Under these circumstances, it was recommended that the Committee should decide that it was minded to approve the application, subject to the Unilateral Undertaking being finalised, to the conditions and informatives set out in the report, and the terms of the section 106 legal agreement. 

§                                                                                            Correction to proposal description. Delete “and A1/A3” from description of commercial floorspace.  Various clauses have been changed in the applicant’s Unilateral Undertaking, at the Council Housing Development Officer’s request, to ensure that the affordable housing would be offered on satisfactory terms to the Council.

(iii)         Additions

§                                                                                             A further Condition is recommended as follows: “A material start shall not take place to the development hereby approved until the Council has received a deed of obligation under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 providing planning obligations to the Council's satisfaction in respect of Affordable Housing, Education Provision, on-street car parking limitation, Health Play-Space, Open Space and Transport.”

The Committee heard representations against the application from Michael Gibbons and Giles Dixon.

The Committee heard a representation in favour of the application from Matt Bailey,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67a

River centre with D1 and A3 use, confirming to Thames Policy Area Appraisal (TPAA) 4.2 paragraphs 1 & 2:

“River centres have activities for use classes D1 and A3 of the General Use Class 1987 accommodating permanent environmental information, formal or informal education functions, and provide environmental activities (talks, meetings and events) which promote the vibrancy of the tidal Thames, Blue Ribbon Network and wide enjoyment of the environment”

“River centres also provide the opportunities for people to congregate on the water with the provision of food and drink, entertainment, sport and recreation , tourism, cultural, river-related economic activities, practising environmental belief and health facilities for the enjoyment of the Thames being an essential means by which river centres bring life to the waterways.  The update and inclusion of the term river centre in 2011 is very carefully detailed to provide a robust and secure planning status, as described within the D1 and A3 General Use Order”

Officer recommendation: REFUSAL

Councillor Linnette rejoined the Committee having withdrawn for the last item and took the Chair from Councillor Naylor.

The Development Control Officer introduced the item, briefly describing the main issues at hand and the history of applications on the site. 

In addition she reported the following written representations received following publication of the agenda:

(i)      One letter of objection from the Environment Trust which stated that:

·         A3 should be strictly a minor and ancillary part of the information / exhibition / education centre

·         The pontoon to house toilets was an unsightly, inappropriate intrusion into MOL

·         Supported the recommendation to refuse, and commended officers on comprehensive and well-reasoned report

·         Support the continuing enforcement action

(ii)    A further letter has been received from the applicant.  This had been scanned and made available to Members to review.

(iii)   A further letter has been received from the Planning Consultant for the applicant.  A copy of this had been made available to the Planning Committee and was attached as an appendix to the addendum. [Also attached as an appendix to these minutes]

The Committee heard representations against the application from Yvonne Hewett, Hilary Pereira and Chares Pineles.

The Committee heard representations in favour of the application from Barry Edwards and Honor Bailey.  Mr James Lloyd, Planning consultant to the applicant had registered to speak but the Committee heard that he was unable to attend.

The Committee considered the information received from officers and from those who had made representations in addition to that contained in the report and addendum.  They discussed the application and in particular they considered the following themes:

(i)      That the existing A3 use had been found to exceed an ancillary use.

(ii)    That the Metropolitan Open Land policy was crucial to any decision taken, in terms of land use and design (in addition to the over-concentration policy).  The Committee noted that A3 use was not deemed an appropriate use within such areas

(iii)   That the impact on the area of the scheme in terms of siting, design and encroachment would be unacceptable. 

(iv)  Whether reports of noise and disturbance could be substantiated, especially given the existing hours of use.

(v)    Consideration was given to the function of the space and the value of the D1 space.

(vi)  That there was some lack of clarity over the numbers of visitors to the centre and to the number of ‘covers’ served and what a ‘cover’ represented.

(vii)Deliveries to the site and how these were currently made and how they might continue to be made should permission be granted.  Reference was also made to earlier planning decisions with respect to this.

The Development Control officer reported to the Committee the inclusion of an incorrect map the front of the report and explained the difference between this and the actual layout of the area.  She assured members that the report was written with the correct drawings as reference and that the drawings they had viewed during the item and on line were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67b

Variation of condition U27543 NS04 of planning permission granted on 29 July 2009 (08/4312/FUL) for the continuation of planning permission granted 11 December 2007 (07/1235/FUL), to allow permanent mixed use as garden centre (Class A1) and café/restaurant (Class A3); namely, to include opening between 19.00 to 23.00 hours on Saturday every week..  

Officer recommendation: REFUSAL

Having declared that he had predetermined the matter at hand Councillor Miller withdrew from the Committee for the duration of the item.

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and reported the following written representations received from interested parties and amendments made by officers following publication of the agenda.

A further letter was received from Petersham Nurseries, responding to specific objections relating to:

• Customer car use;
• Mitigation of any adverse impact on River Lane and surrounding roads;
• Car use by employees;
• Conduct of employees;
• Support for the local economy;
• Minimising disruption through noise;
• Impact on the conservation area/local ecology;
• Light pollution;
• Delivery plans;
• Control of restaurant fumes.

The following corrections and clarifications to the officer’s report:

• With regard to the reference in the Summary to the Green Travel Plan, officers wished to clarify that the mitigation effects relate to the measures put in place between the original grant of planning permission for the restaurant element on a temporary basis and the subsequent grant of permission on a permanent basis. No systematic review of the Green Travel Plan had been undertaken since that time although it was anticipated that a review would be undertaken by the operators in September.

A review of the Green Travel Plan submitted in January 2011 was based on surveys undertaken in February 2010, whereas the original surveys were undertaken in September 2008. The review was therefore not comparing like with like and the applicants were asked to resubmit when September surveys had been undertaken.

• Paragraph 34 erroneously described Church Lane as a local distributor road. It was, in fact, an adopted highway only from Petersham Road to St Peter’s Church. Thereafter it was an unadopted private lane. It was therefore not a local distributor road.
• In paragraph 38, these figures had been supplied by the applicant and assessed by the Transport Officer who recommended, in paragraph 40, that further systematic monitoring should take place.

The Committee heard representations against the application from Mrs Powell, Mrs Flannery and Mr Simon

The Committee heard representations in favour of the application from Charlotte Senn, Scottie Bhattarai, employees at the Nursery and café respectively.

The Committee heard a representation from Councillor Miller who spoke as an interested Councillor.

The Development Control Officer responded to some of the points raised by speakers.

The Committee considered the information received from officers and from those who had made representations in addition to that contained in the in the report and addendum.  They discussed the application and in particular they considered the following themes:

(i)      The impact of traffic to and from the Nursery in the evening and the possibility that that would be increased should the application be granted.

(ii)    The potential impact on residents’ enjoyment of the area.

(iii)   The designation of the area as being Metropolitan Open Land and the implications of that designation for A3 use at the venue.

(iv)  The measures suggested by the applicant to mitigate such impacts on neighbours, such as the Travel Plan.

It was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67c

Alterations to a development in the course of construction pursuant to planning permission 09/1490/FUL (Residential development of 76 units, comprising 59 flats and 17 houses, with associated access, landscaping, play area, car parking, cycle parking, refuse and recycling facilities), to allow the relocation of the electricity sub-station, CHP plant and refuse and recycling facilities and layout of the cycle stores and car parking.

Officer recommendation: PERMISSION

[Councillor Bouchier was not in attendance for this item]

Councillor Linnette reported that he had conducted a site visit but had not formed a view on the matter as a result.

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and reported the following written representations received following publication of the agenda

• A further e-mail from applicants had been received, setting out reasons for relocation of electricity sub-station, namely that the supply company, UKPN, required a side-on access of 8m to allow for the installation of the equipment, which the approved location did not have. An alternative location, adjacent to plot 17 was discounted as being too close to the houses. The CHP store was too small, as originally approved and had to be enlarged to accommodate the equipment.
• An additional e-mail from applicants which contained a Noise Impact Assessment Report. The report had been received too late to enable it to be assessed by the Environmental Health Officer. The applicant had also queried whether condition U48804 needed to relate to the CHP plant as this was located in the same place as in the approved scheme. Officers are of the view that the condition did need to apply to the CHP plant as this was now larger than in the approved scheme.

There were no representations made by members of the public or Interested Councillors on this item.

The Committee considered the information received from officers in addition to that contained in the in the report and addendum.  They discussed the application and in particular they considered the following themes:

(i)      That it was not ideal when the committee was asked to deliberate over retrospective planning applications. 

(ii)    The mitigating effect that the tree planting would have in the future.

(iii)   That the committee was sympathetic to the concerns of residents but that the harm caused was not sufficient to warrant a refusal.

It was RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives in the officers report.

Demolition of existing bungalow and garage and erection of two new bungalow dwellings.

Officer recommendation:PERMISSION

[Councillor Bouchier was not in attendance for this item]

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and reported the following amendments made by officers following publication of the agenda:

(i)      Paragraph 1 delete ‘Archeologically Priority’ from site and surroundings

(ii)    Paragraph 12 delete “an area of Archeologically Priority and” and insert “a”. 

(iii)   Paragraph 40.  “The proposal demonstrates” to be replaced with “The proposal indicates”

(iv)  Also Paragraph 40:

“Comments have been received from councils Transport Officer that the crossover would need to be centrally located in order to reduce damage to the footway.  However, the crossover and parking situation at present is similar to that proposed of Bungalow B.  Notwithstanding the above, a parking survey shows that the shortfall of 3 spaces would not be detrimental to the surrounding streets.”

To be replaced with -

“Comments have been received from Councils Transport Officer that whilst the hard standing area shown allows for two car parking spaces on Bungalow B, two vehicles using this access would cause damage to the footway.  However, the parking and crossover situation at present is similar to that proposed at Bungalow B.  Therefore in light of the above, one vehicle is recommended to use the access and a parking survey has been undertaken which shows that the shortfall of 3 spaces would not be detrimental to the surrounding streets.”  This is acceptable to justify the lack of on site car parking.

There were no representations made by members of the public or Interested Councillors on this item.

The Committee considered the information received from officers in addition to that contained in the in the report and addendum.  They discussed the application and in particular they considered the following themes:

(i)      That the pv panels on the roof were part of the application and would go some way to reducing the CO2 emissions of the application.

It was RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives in the officers report.