Agenda and minutes

Minutes of the Planning Committee held on 4 November 2010 TO FOLLOW.

The minutes of the meeting held on 4 November 2010 were agreed as a correct record of proceedings and the Chairman authorised to sign them.

Members are asked to declare any interests in matters for consideration at the meeting.

10/2202/VRC - TWICKENHAM POOL SITE, THE EMBANKMENT, TWICKENHAM

Councillor Chappell declared a prejudicial interest in this item by virtue of her previous participation in campaigns about the Riverside site.

Councillor Naylor declared a prejudicial interest in this item by virtue of his previous participation in campaigns about the Riverside site.

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 Chair will determine the order in which the attached reports are to be heard at the start of the meeting. Members are asked to note that there will be an adjournment of the meeting for a period of approximately 10 minutes starting at a convenient time between 9.00 and 9.30pm.

Variation of S106 agreement to allow the gates installed at the junction of the Ranelagh Drive Public Pedestrian and Cycle Route to be shut.

Officer’s recommendation:  REFUSAL

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and reported the receipt of the following:

§         3 representations supporting the recommendation, re-iterating that keeping the gates open would add to social cohesion, uniting the community.

§         1 representation, 8 signatories: supporting keeping the gates closed apart from access; reiterating the need to maintain safety particularly for children and that it was not possible to remedy the matter as suggested by officers; public access was available via the pedestrian gate; recent appeal in Kilmorey Road allowed gates as the Inspector concluded there was no conflict with policy BLT 17; and suggesting an alternative wording to that submitted by the applicant.

The Committee heard a representation against the application from Mr Rubens, a local resident.

The Committee heard representations in support of the application from Mr Atkin and Mr Roland, local residents, and from Ms Rust, the agent for the application.

A representation was heard from Councillor Harrison, who spoke as an interested Councillor.

The Committee considered whether the road safety and neighbourhood amenity of Martineau Drive would be jeopardised if the gates were fixed permanently open. Members considered that the closure of the gates would deter pedestrians from accessing the public footpath. The Committee were mindful of the planning inspector’s conclusion (stated in paragraph 19 of the officer’s report) that “the safety and security benefits offered by the gates would be outweighed by the harm to social cohesion and integration.” It was noted that latest government guidance discouraged the creation of gated communities as they were seen to impede community integration.

It was RESOLVED:

That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the officer’s report.

Erection of first floor side extension, two storey side and rear extension, rear dormer, front porch, construction of basement and swimming pool/summerhouse in rear garden, being a variation of a scheme granted planning permission on 12 April 2010 (10/0370/HOT).

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and reported the receipt of the following correspondence:

§         Further representation from a neighbouring occupier: reiterating concerns about the risk of subsidence from the basement excavation; the flood risk from creating a basement in Flood Zone 3; the size of the basement and other extensions proposed being out of keeping with the house and its neighbours. If permission were to be granted, safeguards were requested to ensure structural stability, control the size of skips and numbers of lorries, hours of working and to minimise noise, vibration, dust and disturbance.

The Committee heard representations against the application from Mr Penton and Mr Roberts who were neighbouring residents.

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

As planning permission had already been granted for the side and rear extension, rear dormer and porch in April 2010, the Committee focused their discussions on the new aspects of the proposal: the basement and the swimming pool / summerhouse.

The Committee discussed whether the basement would increase the risk of flooding to the property and neighbouring properties. It was noted that although the property was in Flood Zone 3a, the Environment Agency had made no objection to the basement (providing it was not used for sleeping accommodation). The Committee also noted that the basement would have very minimal impact on the street scene.

The Committee discussed the proposal for the swimming pool / summerhouse. The Planning Officer advised the Committee that the building would occupy approximately 25% of the garden, but that under permitted development rights ancillary buildings could occupy up to 50% of a garden. However, the summerhouse was 70cm higher than that allowed under permitted development. Some concerns were expressed regarding the issue of noise and disturbance to neighbours, but the Committee considered it inappropriate to reject the application on these grounds, as the outbuilding would be for domestic use, ancillary to the house.

Some Committee members were concerned that although the summerhouse could not be viewed from the road, the design could have a negative impact on the visual amenity of neighbouring properties. Concerns were also raised over the material to be used for the roof, that it was openable and whether it would be structurally safe. The Committee also had regard to the neighbours’ concerns that the removal of two leylandii trees and foliage at the rear of the garden would result in loss of wildlife habitat.

It was RESOLVED:

1.      That the application be DEFERRED, in order that the applicant submit the following:

• further details of materials to be used for the swimming pool/summerhouse
• further details of the swimming pool/summerhouse roof structure
• details of a soft landscaping scheme for the back garden

2.   That on submission, the details be referred to the Planning Committee for determination, at which time only these details and any alterations to the application be considered.    

Change of use of first, second and third floors from office (Class B1) to education (Class D1) and /or office (Class B1) and alterations to third floor to create amenity space at roof level.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the report and made the following amendment:

§         Amendment to condition U35377 to allow details to be submitted and approved before the use commences. The condition would now read:

“Detailed drawings of the internal layout of the cycle/buggy/bin store to show how the cycles, buggies and bins are to be accommodated shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority before the Class D1 day nursery use hereby permitted commences. The Class D1 day nursery use hereby permitted shall not commence until the cycle/buggy/bin store has been provided and made ready for use in accordance with the approved drawings and the details thus approved, and the cycle/buggy/bin store shall be permanently retained for the duration of the Class D1 day nursery use.

REASON: To safeguard the appearance of the property, the amenities of the area and to accord with the Council's policy of discouraging the use of the car wherever possible.”

The Committee heard a representation in support of the application from the agent, Miss Baker.

The Committee’s discussion focused predominantly on the applicant’s Travel Plan. It was noted that there were three bus routes and a rail station near to the application site. There was also a car park next to the site, though customers would be encouraged to use public transport.  The building could be accessed easily by foot.  The Travel Plan would be reviewed periodically to ensure it was effective.

In response to questions, Members were assured that health and safety issues had been considered in the design of the roof space. Members concluded that the nursery application would ensure that the previously empty office space was put to an appropriate use.

It was RESOLVED:

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

Subdivision of existing house into two.Erection of side extension and rear extension.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item. There were no late representations or changes to the report.

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

The Committee discussed the proposed extensions to the property. It was considered that the scale was appropriate given the size of the original house and garden. The Committee concluded that the design of the application was acceptable for that of a Building of Townscape Merit and provided an attractive solution for the site.

It was RESOLVED:

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

Second floor extension to form a pair of one-bed flats.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and reported the receipt of the following correspondence:

§         Letters from the two owners of the two first floor flats, reiterating objections relating to the parking layout, impact on the first floor flats and lack of improvements for the first floor flats. The potential impact of the building works on wildlife, especially bats, was also raised.

The Development Control Officer reported the following additional condition to the report:

§         That parking and servicing arrangements be provided in accordance with detailed drawings to be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to occupation of the new flats.

§         REASON: To safeguard the appearance of the property and the amenities of the area and to satisfy parking requirements.

No representations were heard.

In response to a query on drainage the Committee was advised that this would be addressed by Building Regulations. The Committee considered the design of the application. It was agreed that the scheme would improve the character of the property and did not represent a reason for refusal.

It was RESOLVED:

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

Change of use from Class D1 (health centre) to C3 (residential).

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item. There were no late representations or changes to the report.

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

The Committee discussed access to the site and was informed that the property was located behind a row of commercial units. Some Members were concerned that there was a lack of outside amenity space. However, it was advised that the site was in close proximity to Hampton Village Green. There was also a communal patio area adjoining the property. It was noted that there were other units in the area with D1 use and that this property was no longer marketable as a health centre location. The change to class C3 would ensure that the property had a workable use.

It was RESOLVED:

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

Conversion of 2 No. flats into a single family dwelling house, incorporating a basement, reconstruction of an existing side extension and changes to the front garden area.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the report and made the following amendments:

§         Amendment to the description of the proposal: insert at the end #Installation of pv panels to roof#

§         Amendment to Paragraph 4 of the report: delete #and Councillor Coombs#

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

A representation was heard from Councillor Harrison, who spoke as an interested Councillor.

The Committee considered the application in light of the Council’s emerging policy DM HO1. It was discussed whether the loss of a residential unit would be mitigated by the refurbishments and improvements that the applicant would make to the site. The location and effectiveness of the solar panels was examined. The provision of renewable technology was seen as a key factor in improving the property. Councillors also debated whether converting the property to a single dwelling house would render the street scene more visually attractive. It was noted that the character of the street and surrounding area comprised mainly of single family dwelling houses, which would be complimented by the conversion of the application site.

It was RESOLVED:

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

Renewal of temporary planning permission to allow the use of the play area and café to continue for a further two years.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

Having both declared prejudicial interests, Councillor Chappell and Councillor Naylor withdrew from the room for the duration of this item.

The Development Control Officer introduced the item. There were no late letters of correspondence or alterations to the report.

No representations were heard.

The Committee discussed the current layout of the playground. Some Members were concerned that there was a lack of shaded areas for users to occupy during summer months. However, as there had been no change to the site since the planning permission had originally been granted and there were no significant changes in planning policy, it was felt that there were no grounds for refusing the renewal.

It was RESOLVED:

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

§         The applicant is encouraged to provide a shaded area for users of the play ground, particularly children, to mitigate potential harm from the sun. Such a structure may require planning permission & the applicant is encouraged to discuss options with officers in the Planning Section.