Agenda and minutes

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.

Councillors Linnette, Chappell, Coombs, O’Malley and Speak declared that they had visited the application site 12/1802/FUL.

Councillor Naylor declared that he had visited application site 10/3734/DD01.

To consider the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 6 September 2012 TO FOLLOW.

The minutes of the meeting held on 6 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.

Construction of an enclosed and floodlit, bitumen macadam, Multi-Use Games Area (MUGA) on open space, while returning a similarly sized area of unused car park to natural turf, with the resulting changes in use.

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 Burgess and Mr Bristow, local residents, and from Mr Jakobi, a residents’ association representative.

The Committee heard representations in support of the application (on behalf of the applicant) from Mr Skelton, the Youth Centre Manager; Mr Somerville, the Project Manager; and Ms Price, the Head of Integrated Youth Support Services.

The Committee heard a representation from Councillor Williams 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 proposal in light of the Council’s policies on Public Open Space and Other Open Land of Townscape Importance: designations which had been given to Ham Green. The Committee considered whether the function and visual aspects of the Green were compromised by the proposal. It was noted that alternative open space would be provided as part of the proposal but it was felt that this did not compensate for the detriment that was caused to the Green. In particular it was felt that the visual detriment caused by the height and appearance of the fencing and floodlights was harmful to the character of the area. Members discussed whether the public benefit in the proposal outweighed the visual harm to the open space: the majority view was that given this particular design it did not.

Members also discussed whether the application represented harm to the amenity of neighbouring properties. It was felt that the proposed site was of sufficient distance from residential properties and that it would be unreasonable to refuse the application on the grounds of noise disturbance because sports could already be played at this location.

It was RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED for the following reason:

The proposal, by reason of the height, design, form and colour of the fencing and floodlights, would be harmful to the character and openness of the Other Open Land of Townscape Importance and would fail to protect and enhance the Public Open Space upon which it would be located. It would therefore be contrary to policies DM OS 3 and DM OS 6 of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Local Development Framework Development Management Plan adopted November 2011.

Details pursuant to condition U37877 (details of side screens to balcony).

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 in support of the application from Mr Hills, the applicant.

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

The Committee agreed with the recommendation of the officer and the reasons as outlined in the report and addendum.

It was RESOLVED:

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

Demolition of the existing garage to side of property and erection of a three storey side extension.

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]. In addition to this the following amendments to the report were made:

·        Paragraph 3 – reference should be made to no.19 not no.18

·        DMH02 – should be inserted in relation to the summary and paragraph 34.

The Committee heard representations against the application from Mrs Stapleton, an adjoining neighbour.

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

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

Members discussed the design of the proposal and in particular the positioning of the windows. It was debated whether a lack of symmetry was harmful to the Conservation Area and also whether the spacing of properties was in keeping with the character of the Conservation Area. Some Members felt that the proposed extension was out of keeping with the host building and that the proposal failed to preserve or enhance the conservation area. However, the consensus was that the design was acceptable and sufficiently subordinate to the host building. Members felt that the proposed screening, being 1.7m high, was adequate to safeguard the privacy of the neighbouring property.

It was generally felt that with the inclusion of the safeguarding conditions the proposal would be acceptable; would preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and Buildings of Townscape Merit; and would not unduly affect the amenities of neighbouring properties.

It was RESOLVED that the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report and addendum.

Demolition of existing garage, construction of new garage with accommodation over, modification of existing wall to Sudbrook Lane, new paving to garage apron and new gates and piers.

Officer’s recommendation: 12/1822/HOT - REFUSAL

12/1823/LBC - REFUSAL

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

The Committee heard a representation in support of the application from Mr De Courcy, the agent.

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

Members considered the applicants’ argument that the proposal would be beneficial to highway safety but did not agree and concluded that the proposal would be harmful to highway safety. Members concurred with the officer’s recommendations; they felt that the proposals represented harm to a Listed Building, to a neighbouring Building of Townscape Merit, and to the character and appearance of the conservation area. Therefore it was concluded that the applications could not be granted permission.

It was RESOLVED:

1. That application 12/1822/HOT be REFUSED for the reason set out in the officer’s report.

2. That application 12/1823/LBC be REFUSED for the reason set out in the officer’s report.