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.

07/3167/DD10 – TEDDINGTON SECONDARY SCHOOL, BROOM ROAD, TEDDINGTON

Councillor Elengorn declared a prejudicial interest in the above named application by virtue of his having been a governor at the school until recently.  He undertook to leave the room for the duration of the item.

Councillors Linnette, Blakemore, Bouchier, Harborne, Jaeger, Miller, Naylor and Nicholson declared that they had undertaken an organised visit to the site with Officers of the Planning Department.

10/3578/FUL – 30 PROSPECT CRESCENT, WHITTON  

Councillor Jaeger declared a prejudicial interest in the above named application by virtue of a friendship with an adjoining neighbour of the site.  Councillor Jaeger also declared that she would exercise her right to make a representation.  She undertook to withdraw from the room for the duration of the item barring her representation.

10/0926/FUL - & 10/0927/LBC – THE BRITANNIA PH, 5 BREWERS LANE, RICHMOND

Councillor Bouchier declared a personal interest in the above named item by virtue of limited knowledge and use of the premises over time.

To consider the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 31 March 2011 TO FOLLOW

The minutes of the meeting of the 31^st march 2011 were confirmed as an accurate record 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.

Provision of details pursuant to conditions:

U18976  -    Contaminated land;

U18998  -    Vehicular access (onto Broom Road);

U18995  -    Signage/Traffic Calming (access between MUGA & school);

U18991  -   Transport/traffic scheme (access onto Trowlock Way from Broom Road recreation     ground car park);

U18963  -    Details of back shields/cowls to light columns

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and referred to the following additional information received since the publication of the report:

• A petition with 29 signatories & 3 letters including a brochure of correspondence  have been received re-iterating objections to the light pollution for neighbours’ houses & gardens & ecology. The recently fitted back shields make no difference to the unacceptable situation & look more dominant in daylight.

He reminded the Committee of the history of the case and that this was a deferred application for the discharge of conditions received originally in November 2010.

The Committee heard representations against the discharge of conditions, particularly condition U18963 pertaining to the lighting of the sports field from Mr Mackay, Mr Patel, Mr Blaiklock and Dr Mathias (a Councillor who, owing to a prejudicial interest in the application, was speaking as a resident).  The number of speakers was extended to four (Mr Mackay and Mr Patel sharing a three minute representation) at the Chairman’s discretion and owing to the exceptional circumstances surrounding the uncertainty of the applications appearance at Committee that evening.

[Having acknowledged a prejudicial interest in the matter at hand and having made her representation, Dr Mathias (Councillor) withdrew from the Committee room for the duration of the item].

The Committee heard representations in support of the discharge of the conditions, particularly condition U18963 pertaining to the lighting of the sports field from Mr Tim Malthouse of Teddington Hockey Club.

The Committee heard a representation from Ishbel Murray, Assistant Director of Environment, LBRuT, on behalf of the council as applicant.  As part of those representations she requested that Committee consider a deferral of condition U18963 in order that Council Officer Darren Jacobs could be present and in order that negotiations could continue with the School to find a voluntary solution.

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

[Having declared a prejudicial interest in the application by virtue of being a Governor of the school and a member of the Cabinet at LBRuT, Councillor Arbour withdrew from the Committee room for the duration of the item].

The Committee discussed the information received and points raised by speakers; in particular they referred to the following:

(i)      That the conclusions reported to have been found by the independent light expert hired by residents were at odds with the officer report received by the committee.  That it was unfortunate that the expert could not be present to further qualify his findings.

(ii)    The possible conditioning of tree planting to further protect houses in the locality from glare was considered but acknowledged that it would take a long time for the trees to mature.

(iii)   The impact of the lighting, with the cowls attached on the local wildlife, including bats and water birds was considered.

(iv)  That the kind of lights that would have no impact on wildlife and residents would not also meet the needs of the Hockey Club. Lights must be 300 Lux to play Hockey safely.

(v)    The committee  ...  view the full minutes text for item 71a

Change of use from A4 (public house) to A5 (take away), to include ground floor extension to rear. Repositioning of associated plant at roof level. New means of access created to upper flat.

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and referred to the following additional information received since the publication of the report:

• The number of letters received objecting to the proposal had risen to 330
• A petition with 114 signatures had been received objecting on the grounds already outlined within the report.

The Committee heard representations against the application from Mr Churcher, local residents’ association representative, Mr Morpurgo, Local Resident and Friend of Bushy Park, and Ms Jackson, Town Centre Manager. 

The Committee heard representations in support of the application from Ms Griffith, the agent on behalf of the applicant.

The Committee heard representations from Councillor Cardy and Eady, Ward Councillors for Hampton Hill.

The Committee discussed the information received and points raised by speakers; in particular they referred to the following:

(i)      Concerns regarding the increase of litter, particularly in the park were discussed.  The Committee were concerned that a takeaway venue near to the park would increase existing litter problems and possibly endanger wildlife if not controlled.  It was noted that a condition was included in the report that required the applicant to submit a plan for litter management and the committee discussed the adequacy of this condition in order to protect the park and wildlife in it.

(ii)    Safety concerns regarding the proximity of the application site to the road and the concerns of residents.  It was noted that the Highways officer at LBRuT was satisfied with the plans.

(iii)   Disturbance to nearby residents, the possibility of ASB and the possibility of increased demand for the car park including resident spaces were discussed.  The committee considered whether the usage, demand for parking spaces or likelihood of ASB would be different from the previous use as a Public House.  It was also noted that no formal objection had been received from the local policing team.

(iv)  The need for a public house at the location and the veracity of any marketing of the building as a Public House.

(v)    Whether there was evidence that the High Street had reached saturation point for take away food venues.  The Committee were informed that it had not been identified as such by the council.

It was RESOLVED:

1.      That the application be refused for the following reasons:

a.      The proposal would have an adverse effect on the amenity of nearby uses, and surrounding residential areas including a cumulative adverse effect. As such the proposal does not meet the criteria of Emerging Policy DM TC 5, The Evening Economy, of the Development Management Plan, Local Development Framework.

b.      In the absence of marketing evidence which clearly demonstrates that the building or site is no longer suitable for a cultural or entertainment use, the proposal is contrary to policy CCE 15, Retention of indoor recreation, cultural and entertainment facilities, of the Richmond upon Thames Unitary development Plan : First Review 2005.

Demolition of existing cottage/bungalow and construction of two new semi detached two-bedroom houses.

The Development Control Officer introduced the item.

The Committee heard representations against the application from Mrs Forbes and Mr Curry, both neighbours of the application site.

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

The Committee discussed the information received and points raised by speakers; in particular they referred to the following:

(i)      The distance of the application site from neighbouring properties in particular No.8 Dells Close and the possibility that the plans may constitute an overbearing development.

(ii)    Whether it was possible to renovate the existing house as opposed to demolishing and rebuilding the property.

(iii)   Whether the concerns of the inspector in his previous upholding of a council refusal had been sufficiently addressed.

(iv)  That the second bedroom on the plans did not meet the design guidelines of the Council but that this alone would not be grounds for a refusal of the application 

It was RESOLVED:

That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the officer’s report and the following additional reason:

• The proposed development, by reason of its siting, scale, bulk and mass, would represent a cramped and overbearing development, that would have an unneighbourly and unduly adverse impact on the amenities of no. 8 Dells Close contrary to policies BLT 11 and 16 of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Unitary Development Plan First Review Adopted March 2005; policy CP 7 of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Approved Core Strategy 2009; Emerging Policy DM DC 1 and 5 of the Development Management Plan, Local Development Framework, and Supplementary Planning Guidance Document ‘Small and Medium Sized Housing Sites, Adopted February 2006.

Amendments during the course of construction of ground floor extensions approved under ref: 10/1194/HOT, to include first floor rear extension.

Having declared that he had predetermined the application and intended to speak as an interested Councillor; Councillor Naylor withdrew from the Committee for the duration of the item.

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and reminded the committee, as in the report, that only the first floor extension was for consideration by virtue of the other elements of the plans being acceptable under permitted development rights, subject to some modifications, which are currently being addressed.  An informative will be placed on the decision advising the applicants of this.

The Committee heard a representation against the application from Mr Palk an adjoining neighbour.

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

The Committee heard a representation from Councillor Naylor, speaking as an interested Councillor.

The Committee discussed the information in the report, addendum and points raised by speakers; in particular they referred to the following:

(i)      The loss of the prominent stained glass window was considered unfortunate but the committee heard that it had been prohibitively expensive for the applicant to repair and maintain.  In addition the window was not afforded any planning protections.

(ii)    The committee heard that the area had been under consideration as a candidate for conservation area status but that as this had not progressed beyond the preliminary stages very little if any weight could be given to this consideration.

(iii)   That the application in conjunction with those changes made under permitted development rights may constitute an unacceptable cumulative effect on the area.  The committee heard that this was a subjective decision but that in terms of local policy guidance this was not the case.

(iv)  The design of the building was discussed, the committee was advised and generally agreed that it met with local policy requirements.

It was RESOLVED that the application be approved subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report, and the additional informative that was tabled on the addendum sheet:

NI01:  Notwithstanding what is shown on the submitted plans, hereby approved, this decision solely relates to the first floor rear extension.  For purposes of clarity, no decision or approval has been made on the roof extension.

Erection of a two bedroom bungalow.

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and referred to the following additional information received since the publication of the report:

• Correct location plan 

© Crown copyright. All rights reserved. London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames LA 100019441[2011] '- Do not scale ‘

The Committee heard a representation against the application from Mrs Reynolds Boulanger representing her grandmother who resided next door to the application site.

The Committee discussed the information received and points raised by speakers; in particular they referred to the following:

(i)      That a previous application already had permission on the site and that officers deemed this new application to be less intrusive despite the concerns of the resident at No66.

(ii)    The loss of trees on the street from this application and similar ones previously was discussed.  It was noted that the landscaping of the development was conditioned within the officer’s report.

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

Demolition of existing 1960’s bungalow and replacement with new predominantly single storey dwelling with mezzanine and basement.

The Development Control Officer provided a brief introduction to the report and reported the following amendment to the sustainability levels included in the report, received since publication:

• Condition DV44 - Level 5 rather than 6
• Informative NI01 – Level 5 rather than 3

The Committee heard a representation in support of the application from the architect, Mr King representing the applicant who could not attend.

(i)      The Committee sought clarification regarding sustainability levels and it was confirmed that levels 5 and 5 were now included in the plans.

(ii)    The modern design of the application was discussed and agreed that it was sympathetic and suitable to the locality.

It was RESOLVED that the application be approved subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officers report.

Single storey side/rear extension and conversion of the property into two self contained flats.

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and confirmed that no additional information had been received since the publication of the report.

The Committee heard a representation in support of the application from the applicant, Ms Britnell

The Committee heard a representation from Councillor Jaeger, speaking as an interested Councillor on behalf of a resident.

[Having previously declared a prejudicial interest in the item, Councillor Jaeger withdrew from the Committee room for the duration of the item].

The Committee discussed the information received and points raised by speakers; in particular they referred to the following:

(i)      Whether the flats to be provided under the plans constituted family housing in order to justify the loss of the current family home.  They then considered whether the loss of a family home was contrary to policy DMH01.  Officers advised the committee that DMH01 was an emerging policy and that this should be reflected in any decision.  In addition the Committee was reminded that the plan, of which DMH01 was part, would be the subject of a formal public examination in May.  The examination would consider any objections to the policy received.

It was RESOLVED that the application be refused for the following reason:

The proposed conversion of the building into two self contained flats would result in the loss of a family dwelling in the borough.  The proposal would thereby be contrary to policy DM HO1 of the Emerging Development Management Plan DPD (2010).

10/0926/FUL

Relocation of condenser unit serving the cooled cedar to the light well adjacent to No. 3 Brewers Lane (retrospective)

Removal of existing extraction duct / flue at ground floor level

Installation of 400mm metal exhaust duct to the rear elevation, termination 1500mm above the height of the top of the adjacent window opening.

10/0927/LBC

Relocation of condenser unit serving the cooled cedar to the light well adjacent to No. 3 Brewers Lane (retrospective)

Removal of existing extraction duct / flue at ground floor level

Installation of 400mm metal exhaust duct to the rear elevation, termination 1500mm above the height of the top of the adjacent window opening.

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and reported the following information received or amended since the publication of the agenda:

• An amendment to IL12:  Replace 07.23.03A with 03.B and 07.23.07 with 07.23.07A
• Replace IL12 to DV48 (approved drawing numbers condition)

• Further comments were received from applicants regarding alternative locations:  These were flawed in one way or another, hence why the current scheme was chosen. The option received are noted below:

1.      To run the ducting from its current location under the fire escape stair, along the left hand boundary of the garden/patio area at ground level, returning along the rear boundary and then exhausted into the air. The trunking would be visually treated with some trellis and seating etc, but unfortunately the exhaust fumes would be at too lower level to be dispelled

2.      To run the ducting through the flat roof of the kitchen at the rear and run it along the parapet of the flat roof over, disguising it in a similar fashion to (1) above and then direct the trunking vertically in the same way as we are currently proposing. However, this would also require alterations to the fire escape stair and be more visually offensive. There would also be difficulty in being able to accommodate the silencers and filters etc., so both visually and technically this option was also flawed.

3.      Consideration was given to taking the ducting internally and then utilising the existing chimney flue to disguise the trunking – unfortunately the existing flue was not of adequate size. This option would also potentially damage the internal fabric of the Listed Building.

4.      Utilising a combination of the current proposal and option (2), consideration was given to constructing a new brick flue to surround the ducting but the size of which would be inappropriate with regard to the Listed Building and generally look out of place. This is why on balance it was decided by the Council’s Officers that the current solution was the most appropriate.

[The Development Control Officer also drew attention to a change to condition NS03 – after kitchen extraction system unit, add, and condenser unit]

The Committee heard representations against the application from Mr Bain and Mr Willan, neighbours not adjoining the site and Mr Walker, a neighbour adjoining the site.

The Committee heard a representation in support of the application from Mr Wood, agent on behalf of the applicant.

The Committee discussed the information in the report, addendum and points raised by speakers; in particular they referred to the following:

(i)      The possibility of the flue being housed in the Chimney.  The committee was reminded that the Conservation Officer had thoroughly assessed the options and in their professional opinion it was not possible.

(ii)    A condition limiting the hours of use.  The committee agreed that this option would not greatly alleviate the visual or other impact for residents but would have a severe detrimental effect on the viability of the business.

(iii)   A condition requiring screening was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 71h

Erection of a 2 storey extension to accommodate 4 new classrooms and an administration office.

The Development Control officer introduced the item and confirmed that no additional information had been received since the publication of the report.

The Committee considered the information within the officer’s report and did not identify harmful aspects within the application submitted.

It was RESOLVED that the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officers report

Retention of a two storey rear extension.

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and referred to the following additional information received since the publication of the report:

• Three further letters were received from Mr Kerans (15 Albion Road) and Mr Dunn (48 The Green) in response to the applicant’s letter dated 21 February 2011.  Comments on the following matters should be noted:

(Mr Kerans)

False and Misleading Statements

Ø      The applicant has answered ‘no’ to question 7 of the householder application form relating to whether trees are within falling distance of a proposed development.
(officer response – the applicant has incorrectly completed this part of the application form and members should note that a mature Silver Birch is located within No.48’s rear garden and is within falling distance of the proposed extension)

Ø      Neither I nor Mr Dunn have submitted a letter of support in relation to this application. Several years ago, I was prepared to support a rear single storey kitchen extension only.
(officer response – confirmed that Messrs Kerans and Dunn do not support this application)

Tree Works

Ø      Little or no action has been taken by the applicant to cut back the Silver Birch that presents a danger to life and property

Conservation Area Impact

Ø      Layout, density and overbearing appearance of the building has a negative and deleterious effect on the Twickenham Green as it can be seen from Collis Alley

Consultation on 2008 Application

Ø      No neighbour notification letters received by Nos 15, 17 and 19 Albion Road
(officer response – letters dispatched to these addresses by the Council but delivery is not recorded)

(Mr Dunn)

Ø      No support given in relation to this application

Ø      Non planning issues raised relating to party walls matters

(The agent) has submitted a letter on behalf of the applicant stating the following:

Ø      Due to inaccuracies on the original drawings the extension was built higher than approved. Now only a nominal difference in height, box gutter introduced at the instance of the neighbours which lead to a change to the pitch of the roof

Ø      Was not aware that a metal balcony was a stipulation of the approval

(officer response: the metal balcony was the subject of details provided by the applicant’s agent and approved by the Council under 08/3009/DD02)

Ø      Extension is positioned to rear and not visible from the conservation area

The Committee considered the information within the officer’s report and addendum information and did not identify harmful aspects within the application submitted.

It was RESOLVED that the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officers report

Use of site in front of Phoenix Wharf for mooring of a houseboat to include alterations to the houseboat currently moored in this location name 'GB Vision'.

[Having declared that he had pre-determined the application and intended to speak as an interested Councillor, Councillor Naylor withdrew from the Committee for the duration of the item].

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and referred to the following additional information received since the publication of the report:

• The Agent had submitted a letter with attachments, copied to members, seeking to argue for the planning application & providing more information regarding the lawfulness of the site for a houseboat mooring.

The Committee heard representations in support of the application from Ms Scott, a planning consultant on behalf of the applicant, Mr Harrison, the applicant and Mr Edwards, a representative of the River user group.

The Committee also heard a representation from Councillor Naylor, speaking as an interested Councillor.

The Committee discussed the information received and points raised by speakers; in particular they referred to the following:

(i)      That the structure was not permanently fixed to the pontoon and had been unbolted and moved in 2006 when it was subject to an enforcement notice relating to its use as office space.  It was clarified that the use now and since returning to Phoenix Wharf was solely residential.

(ii)    The Committee heard that although Planning Officers had perceived the changes within the application to improve the appearance of the structure they were not considered sufficient to make the scheme wholly acceptable in design terms.

(iii)   The Committee considered claims that not only was the structure not harmful to other residents and river users that it actively helped to maintain the river economy.  Officers advised the committee that in their professional opinion the structure did not meet policies ENV32 and DMOS13 raised in representations in support of the application.  

(iv)  The possibility of adding conditions relating to the use and occupation of the premises were discussed, should permission be granted.  It was acknowledged that in extreme circumstances personal permissions could be granted.  After discussion the committee did not agree that the circumstances of the applicant and his family were sufficiently extreme to grant such permission.

It was RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for the reasons set out in the officers report.

Use of site in front of Phoenix Wharf for the mooring of a houseboat.

[Having declared that he had pre-determined the application and intended to speak as an interested Councillor, Councillor Naylor withdrew from the Committee for the duration of the item].

The Chairman sought and received permission from the Committee to hear this application before 10/3716/FUL.

The Development Control officer introduced the item and confirmed that no additional information had been received since the publication of the report.

The Committee sought clarification of the nature of an S191 application and the usual way in which they were established.  They were advised that, being a legal judgement they were normally decided under delegated powers by the Councils legal department but that this application had been requested by a Councillor to appear before the Committee.

The Committee moved to representations; the Planning Consultant on behalf of the applicant, Ms Scott sought to submit additional evidence in support of her representation to the committee.  The evidence had not been seen by the Development Control Officer and was deemed inadmissible by virtue of its lateness.

In light of the discussion on S191 applications and the inadmissibility of the evidence by Ms Scott, Councillor Miller moved a motion seeking a deferral of the decision in order that legal services could be represented at the meeting to offer guidance to the committee and that Ms Scott’s additional evidence could be verified and considered by the Committee.  The motion was seconded by Councillor Elengorn.

The Committee voted and the motion was passed therefore:

It was RESOLVED that the application be DEFERRED in order that the Committee can benefit from legal advice in relation to the consideration of an S191 and to consider further information submitted by the applicant.