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 the nature of the interest.

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.

Councillor Linnette, Councillor Chappell and Councillor Burford declared that they were acquainted with the applicant for 12/1850/FUL (York House Gardens) but that they had not spoken with him on this matter nor had they formed a prior view.

Councillor Bouchier noted that applications 12/1486/FUL; 12/1812/FUL and 12/2176/FUL were within her ward and that she knew the sites, but she had not had any contact with applicants or objectors in relation to these applications.

Councillor Burford declared that his children had previously attended the school in relation to application 12/1812/FUL but were no longer in attendance.

To consider the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 20 September 2012 TO FOLLOW.

The minutes of the meeting held on 20 September 2012 were approved as a correct record of proceedings 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.

Temporary structures erected on the tennis courts and grounds at York House as part of the winter festivities for visitors.

Officer’s recommendation: PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and made amendments to the report as set out in the addendum [attached below].

The Committee heard representations against the application from Mr Marshall and Mr Parr, neighbours adjoining the site; and from Mrs Pinkney, a local resident.

The Committee heard representations in support of the application from Mr O’Brien, the Twickenham Town Centre Co-ordinator; Mr Driscoll, the applicant; and from Mr Burgess, a consultant on behalf of the applicant.

The Committee considered points raised by speakers and information provided by officers in conjunction with the report.

The Committee considered whether the benefit to the community and Twickenham town centre would outweigh any negative impact on the amenity of nearby residents. It was recognised that some residents were concerned about potential noise, disturbance and congestion caused by the proposal. Some Members felt that this represented harm to the conservation area. However, it was recognised that the safeguarding conditions proposed would alleviate noise concerns to an extent. Some concerns such as those relating to the sale of alcohol could be addressed via licensing regulations.

Members recognised that the application was for a trial period only, and that issues such as parking could be examined via this trial. Highways Officers had not currently raised objection to the application on parking grounds and the applicant was expected to encourage visitors to use public transport. Members discussed the length of the trial period and whether it was reasonable. It was felt that in order to minimise harm to neighbour amenity the applicant should ensure that the hours of construction and deconstruction for the site were restricted. Given the proposed mitigating conditions and informatives, and the trial period, consensus was that the application was acceptable in the conservation area.

It was RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report and addendum, and the following additional informative:

Non Standard informative: The applicant is requested to ensure the construction / removal of the ice rink shall be carried out between the hours of 8am to 6pm, Monday to Friday; 8am to 12pm, Saturday; and not at all on Sundays or Bank Holidays, to protect neighbouring amenity.

Demolition of the existing building (Premier and Suffield House) and the erection of a 78 bed hotel.

Officer’s recommendation:  121486/FUL:  PERMISSION, subject to the

completion of a Section 106 Agreement

12/1487/CAC:  PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer made amendments to the report as set out in the addendum [attached below], and introduced the item, describing the scheme proposed, outlining the key planning history, in particularly the refusal in February 2012, and how much weight should be given to previous decisions.

The Committee heard representations against the application from Mr Pineles of the Richmond Society; Mr McCourt and Mr Godfrey, who were nearby neighbours to the site.

The Committee heard representations in support of the application from Mr Stallan, the agent, and Mr Schofield, the applicant.

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

The Committee considered points raised by speakers and information provided by officers in conjunction with the report.

Members discussed the impact of the applications on the Conservation Area and nearby residential properties. Though mindful of the need to consider these applications on their own merits, Members also reflected on the difference between these applications and the previous ones at the same site (11/3680/FUL and 11/3681/CAC).

Members discussed issues of parking and servicing for the proposed hotel, and were aware that these were concerns for residents, and that the site would experience more traffic than present if the application was granted permission. However, this was due to the fact that the site was currently unoccupied. Highways Officers had not identified servicing at Paradise Road as being of particular hazard to cyclists or other road users, with safeguarding conditions. It was also recognised that Highways Officers did not deem the lack of onsite parking to be unacceptable at this site given the proximity of the Paradise Road car parking facility, the town centre and other public transport interchanges. Moreover, the previous reasons for refusal of application 11/3680/FUL had not incorporated parking and servicing issues as these had not been deemed sustainable (though it was recognised that this was a concern discussed at the time).

Members discussed the design of the application. It was recognised that certain aspects such as location of laundry access had been improved in comparison to application 11/3680/FUL. However, Members were still concerned about the impact of the proposal on the conservation area and Halford Road in particular. The corner element of the design at Halford Road and Paradise Road was seen to be incongruous with the streetscene and not in keeping with the proposed host building. Aspects of the design such as the detailing, scale and materials were discussed and these aspects were felt to be out of keeping with the conservation area and adjacent residential properties. The building line was discussed and it was noted that the Planning Inspector had recently found this to be acceptable.

It was RESOLVED:

1.       That application 121486/FUL be REFUSED for the following reason:

The proposal, by reason of the siting, prominence, design, scale, detailing and materials of the corner element on Halford and Paradise Road, would represent an inappropriate, unsympathetic, incongruous and visually intrusive form of development, that would harm the character,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40.

Alterations and extension to include additional classroom and extension to main entrance and reception areas. Proposed increase in pupil numbers from 270 to 300.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

[Councillor Bouchier was not present for this item]

The Development Control Officer introduced the item. There were no amendments to the report.

The Committee heard a representation in support of the application from Ms Butler, of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (who read a statement from the school’s Headteacher).

The Committee considered points raised by the speaker and information provided by officers in conjunction with the report.

Members discussed the proposal and the impact on the host building and surrounding area. It was felt that the extension was acceptable and enhancement of educational facilities was welcomed. Members did have some concerns about traffic in the vicinity of the school. However, it was noted that the school had now submitted a robust travel plan and that parking and congestion concerns would be better addressed via the Highways Department as they related to a more widespread concern about congestion in this area of Richmond. It was recommended that the Planning Department contact the Highways Department about these concerns.

It was RESOLVED:

1.       That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.

2.       That it be recommended that the Council’s Planning Department write to the Highways Department on the subject of a review of the parking conditions at the corner of Grove Road and Greville Road to minimise parking problems and congestion apparently caused by parents dropping/collecting pupils from the school.

Details pursuant to conditions U41015 (Soft Landscaping Required) and U41014 (Details – Materials to be approved) of planning permission 11/0996/FUL.

Officer’s recommendation: PERMISSION

[Councillor Bouchier was not present for this item]

The Development Control Officer introduced the item. There were no amendments to the report.

The Committee heard a representation against the application from Mr Woolnough, a neighbour adjoining the site.

The Committee heard representations in support of the application from Mr Ely, a nearby neighbour, and from Mr Kerr, the Director of the Golf Club.

The Committee considered points raised by speakers and information provided by officers in conjunction with the report.

The Committee discussed whether the conditions could be discharged and whether this represented harm to neighbouring properties. It was recognised that residents did have concerns about the netting in particular, but it was also noted that neighbouring properties were at least twenty metres from the application site. Given this, it was felt that it was reasonable to discharge the conditions based on the details submitted.

It was RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED subject to the informative set out in the report.

Change of use from Class A1 (Retail) to Class A2 (financial and professional services).

Officer’s recommendation: 12/2187/FUL- REFUSAL

12/2177/LBC - REFUSAL

[Councillor Bouchier was not present for this item]

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and made amendments to the report as set out in the addendum [attached below].

It was noted that application 12/2177/LBC had been withdrawn by the applicant prior to the meeting.

The Committee heard representations in support of the application from Mr Anderson, the agent; and from Mr Donaldson, the applicant.

The Committee considered points raised by speakers and information provided by officers in conjunction with the report.

The Committee noted the reasons why the applicant wished to operate in this building and noted the applicant’s argument that the nature of the business would be akin to an A1 retail use. However, the proposed bank would still be required to operate as A2 use and Members recognised that this would be in contradiction to the adopted policy for a key frontage in Richmond town centre, without substantial marketing evidence to say that the recognised A1 class was unworkable. Members felt that it would be unreasonable to grant permission to this application given the adopted planning policies.

It was RESOLVED:

That application 12/2176/FUL be REFUSED for the reasons set out in the officer’s report.