Councillors' Attendance Statistics
10/1095/FUL & 10/1210/CAC - SYDS QUAY AND SANS SOUCI, EEL PIE ISLAND, TWICKENHAM (The Platonic Partnership)
- Meeting of Planning Committee, Thursday, 1 September 2011 7:00 pm (Item 24c)
- View the declarations of interest for item 24c
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 character and scale of buildings in the immediate vicinity, the acceptable siting, design, scale and materials of the proposed development and the existing relationship with neighbouring properties, the proposed scheme is considered to preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area and designated Metropolitan Open Land. Furthermore, it would be a sustainable form of development and nor would it represent an un-neighbourly form of development or prejudice highway or pedestrian safety.”
· Additional Condition
“Prior to the commencement of development on the site, details of the upgraded slipway including the plant equipment necessary to facilitate its use for boat maintenance / renovation and repair, together with intertidal terraces shall have been submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. Such details shall also include a method statement as to how the use would function together with any mitigation measures necessary to prevent pollution of the river. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with these approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing.
REASON – in the interests of the character of the area, the effective functioning of the slipway and to prevent pollution.”
· Amend Condition DV 48 Approved Drawings to include reference to the OS Map and Drawing Numbers 13, 14 and 18
· Amend Condition BD04 (Details to a Specified Scale) to include details of the gangplank
· Additional informatives
1. The applicant is advised that with reference to Condition U41650 (Flood Emergency Plan) that it will be expected that the Flood Emergency Plan to be submitted for approval will include information and confirmation that the Plan will be prominently displayed within the development and copies made available to all occupiers
2. The applicant is advised that with reference to Condition U41650 (Flood Emergency Plan) that it will be expected that the Flood Emergency Plan to be submitted for approval will include information U41647 (Ecological Enhancement) that such details shall include reference to the issues raised by the Port of London Authority in their letter dated 3rd June 2010
3. The applicant is advised to contact the Port of London Authority to discuss asbestos removal
The Committee heard representations against the application from Ian Tyson and Jack Betteridge. It heard representations in favour of the application from Laurie Riviera and Valerie Scott.
The Committee had no objections to the design and they felt that it was a positive change for the riverside.
It was RESOLVED that:
(1) the application be approved subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report and subject to the following amendment to Non-Standard Condition U41652 (Use) as follows:
“The commercial premises within the building (annotated on the approved drawings Units 1 to 4 (inclusive) shall be used for purposes within Use Class B1 and for no other purpose and the slipway together with the B1 Workshop/Store (as shown on the approved drawings) shall only be used for purposes of boat maintenance, renovation and repair within Use Class B1 and for no other purpose.
REASON: To safeguard the amenities of nearby occupiers and the character of the area generally.”
(2) Conservation Area Consent be GRANTED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report.