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 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.

Councillors Coombs and Head declared that they had carried out site visits for application 12/1202/FUL.

Councillors Linnette, Coombs, Head and Naylor declared that they had carried out site visits for application 12/0712/HOT.

To consider the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 26 July 2012 TO FOLLOW.

The minutes of the meeting held on 26 July 2012 were received and approved as a correct record of proceedings.

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.

New four bedroom dwelling house in the side garden area of 47 Nightingale Road.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

subject to a S106 legal agreement

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and reported late amendments as set out in the addendum [attached below].

The Committee heard a representation against the application from Mr Harker, a neighbour not adjoining the site.

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

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

Though mindful of the need to make a judgement on the application before them, Members did consider this application in comparison to the previous application for the same site (11/3520/FUL) and discussed whether the previous reasons for refusal had been overcome. Members discussed the siting, size and design of the proposed new building. It was generally felt that in comparison to the previous application, the design and bulk of the proposed property was now acceptable and would not be incongruous in the street scene.

Members considered the application in relation to policies HO2 and HO3. It was recognised that there would be a loss of garden space for the existing property and that this could be viewed an infill development. However, Members were satisfied that both the existing and proposed new property would retain ample garden amenity space and that there was not inherent harm in the garden loss to warrant refusal. Some concern was raised about the retention of the mature laurel hedge which bordered the property. It was advised that details of hard and soft landscaping were required as a condition of permission and that this could be used to ensure that planting introduced along Acacia Road would be semi mature.

It was RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED subject to the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement; subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report; and subject to the following additional informative:

Informative:

The applicant/agent is advised that with regard to condition LT09, the soft landscaping details submitted shall clearly show and detail the planting along the Acacia Road frontage and for this to be in a semi mature state.

Erection of a single storey rear extension, loft conversion with rear dormers and roof-lights to front slope, timber clad store to side, alterations to front area including new front garden wall and piers to replace the existing with railings and gates. 

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and reported late amendments as set out in the addendum [attached below].

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

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

Members acknowledged that the applicant had made amendments to the original application in order for the proposal to complement the conservation area and to address neighbours’ concerns. The design, size and siting of the extensions were viewed as appropriate for the street scene and were seen as preserving the setting of the existing building of townscape merit.

It was RESOLVED:

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

Installation of 1 X BT DSLAM telecommunication cabinet – PCP 004.

Officer’s recommendation:  NO OBJECTION

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

The Committee heard representations against the application from Mrs Albrow and Mr Albrow, who resided next to the application site.

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

The Committee discussed the size and siting of the proposed telecommunications cabinet. It was acknowledged that the proposed cabinet would replace a redundant cabinet that existed at the same location. It was recognised that a new cabinet had previously been objected to on this street due to an accumulation of street furniture and that the replacement of the redundant box would overcome this issue. However, Members were concerned that the proposed cabinet would be significantly larger than the existing cabinet. The increased size of cabinet was seen to detract from the conservation area in this location and was not seen to be acceptable.

It was RESOLVED:

That OBJECTION BE RAISED to the application for the following reason:

The proposed  equipment cabinet, by reason of its size and location, would detract from the setting, character and appearance of the adjacent building, no.192 Castelnau, which is a Building of Townscape Merit, and would be harmful to the character and appearance of the Castelnau Conservation Area.

The proposal is therefore contrary to policy CP7 of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Local Development Framework Core Strategy (adopted 2009), Development Management Plan (2010) policies DM DC1, DM HD 1and DM HD 3 and Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents 'Public Space Design Guide' and 'Telecommunications Equipment'.