Agenda and minutes

Planning Committee
Thursday, 1 December 2011 7:00 pm

Venue: Salon, York House, Richmond Road, Twickenham

Contact: Louise Hall, Senior Democratic Services Officer, 020 8891 7813, Email: louise.hall@richmond.gov.uk  To register to speak at Planning Committee call 08456 122 660 or visit http://www.richmond.gov.uk/speaking_at_planning_committee.htm

Webcast: View the webcast

Items
No. Item

37.

APOLOGIES

To receive any apologies for absence.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

No apologies were received.

38.

DECLARATIONS

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.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

11/0812/FUL - 40 SHEEN LANE, EAST SHEEN

 

Councillor Fleming declared a personal interest in this item as she was acquainted with the Applicant but had not discussed the application and had not formed a view on the matter.

 

 

11/3011/VRC - 39 HAMPTON COURT ROAD, EAST MOLESEY, HAMPTON

 

Councillor Nicholson declared that she was predetermined on this item and would withdraw from the committee for the duration of the item.  In addition she would be speaking as an interested councillor on the matter. 

39.

MINUTES pdf icon PDF 90 KB

To consider the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 3 November 2011

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 3 November 2011 were agreed as a correct record of proceedings and the Chairman authorised to sign them.

40.

APPLICATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMISSION; LISTED BUILDING CONSENT; AND ENFORCEMENT OF PLANNING CONTROL

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.

Additional documents:

40a

TPO 800 - 90-94 RICHMOND HILL, RICHMOND pdf icon PDF 4 MB

To decide whether or not to confirm the above Tree Preservation Order following receipt of two objections.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Councillors Naylor, Linnette, Chappell and Miller reported that they had visited the site in question.

 

The Council’s Arboricultural Officer, Mr Holloway, introduced the item for the Committee and briefly described the main tenets of the decision at hand.  There was no new information for the Committee to receive since the publication of the report.

 

The Committee heard a representation from Mr Alex Christopher of CGS consulting.  He spoke against the confirmation of the Tree Protection Order.

 

Mr Holloway clarified for the committee in response to the speaker’s comments that the conservation area protection applied in this area would not give permanent protection to the trees but a temporary 6 week protection.

 

The Committee discussed the application and in particular considered the following points:

 

·  The views that were affected by the trees and which, if any, had greater significance.  It was confirmed that views from dwellings looking on to the site as well as the views from the public highway were considered material considerations in planning appeals.

·  In response to a question, the officer confirmed that, in his professional, opinion the trees provided public visual amenity to the locality, and contributed to the residential nature of the area.

 

The committee referred to the three options for consideration.

 

It was RESOLVED:

 

That the TPO be CONFIRMED for the following reason:

 

All of the trees provided sufficient public visual amenity from Terrace Lane and Friars Stile Road.

40b

10/3768/FUL - 11/0054/CAC - 11/057/LBC- RICHMOND PARK GOLF COURSE, RICHMOND PARK (Glendale Golf) pdf icon PDF 171 KB

Construction of new Golf Clubhouse at Chohole Gate, including reception, foyer, shop, cafe, clubrooms, and changing facilities approximately 756sqm. New car park providing 164 spaces, 20 bay driving range (non-floodlit) approximately 100sqm, academy golf course, minor alterations to existing course and associated mounding, landscaping and ecological enhancements.  Following construction of the new building, the demolition of the existing facilities at Roehampton Gate (ref.10/3768/FUL).

 

Demolition of the existing modular buildings at Roehampton Gate following the construction of the new Golf Clubhouse Buildings at Chohole Gate (Ref.11/0054/CAC).

 

Alterations to existing listed boundary wall, to form a new pedestrian/cycle access, 2m wide. Construction of two brick piers to each side of the new opening to match existing piers on the vehicular access and the installation of a new timber gate to match the existing gate to the vehicular access (Ref. 11/0057/LBC).

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Councillor Naylor drew to the attention of the committee that he was aware of this application previously through his work on the design panel but had not taken a view on the matter.

 

The Development Control officer introduced the item and described to the committee the issues at hand and gave a brief history of the site and the applications before them.

 

She drew the attention of the committee to the addendum as follows:

 

  • Additional plan showing PV panels and coils for the ground source heat pump: No. M/100/T1

 

  • 2 further letters of objection received from residents who bound the site to the east in Roehampton concerned at more trees being planted, visual intrusion and loss of privacy from the driving range and noise generated from the golf ball machines.

 

And to one late letter received after the addendum had been finalised which reiterated previously heard objections from a resident of Chole Court pertaining to the impact of additional traffic car parking and the proximity of the driving range. 

 

The Chairman clarified the new access routes should the application be approved.

 

The Committee heard representations against the application from Mr Antonio Carlos De Souza, Mr Bill Revie, Mr Roger Cook and Mr Devesh Butt.

 

The Committee heard representations in favour of the application from Mr Mike Richardson (agent) and Mr Gary Warren (applicant).

 

The Committee considered the information in the report and that received from officers and speakers, during these considerations the following salient points were made and themes explored:

 

  • That concerns raised by residents regarding the use of a new club house for late night events such as weddings etc could be addressed through conditioning of opening hours.
  • That the car park was close to residents’ houses and not currently used.  However the spaces closest to residents’ and objectors’ houses were reserved for overspill parking only.
  • That concerns regarding wildlife in the area were noted as were the plans for landscaping within the report.
  • The current use of the land in question and the condition of the nursery in situ.
  • That the site was close to a main road and residents and that a traffic plan had been produced by the applicants to attempt to negate any issues that may arise.  In addition storage and rental equipment would be provided to encourage visits made by public transport, although the committee noted that number of buses passing the site was not high.  Furthermore the Highways department of the council had been consulted about the plans and had raised no objection.
  • That it was not known whether any of the land designated as car parking provision was previously classified as Brownfield land but that it had been previously developed.
  • That there was an existing listed park wall between the residents and the carpark and development.  It was confirmed that the wall was 8ft high.
  • That the Golf Club was intended for community use and would provide services for local people and schools.
  • That the Driving range was expected to create  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40b

40c

11/3011/VRC - 39 HAMPTON COURT ROAD, EAST MOLESEY, HAMPTON (MAA Architects for Mr C Royds) pdf icon PDF 311 KB

Variation of Condition application to remove condition DV43A (Parking Permit Restriction) of planning application approved under 08/0721/FUL for alteration of existing retail units to three  residential units over two floors to allow residents parking permits for the two two-bedroom flats.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION

Additional documents:

Minutes:

[Having declared that she had predetermined the application to be considered Councillor Nicholson withdrew from the committee for the duration of the item].

 

The Development Control Officer briefly introduced the application which was for variation of condition on a previously agreed application.  No new information or representations had been received since the publication of the agenda.

 

The committee heard representations against the variation from Mr Savidge.

The committee heard representations in favour of the variation from Mr Parsons (Transport consultant for the applicant)

The committee heard representations from Councillor Nicholson and Roberts who spoke as interested Councillors.

 

The Committee considered the information in the report and that received from officers and speakers; during these considerations the following salient points were made and themes explored:

 

(i)  Concerns over the timing and length of the studies into parking availability in the area were noted but it was also noted that they were consistent with usual procedure.

(ii)  Residents concerns over peak time parking were given regard

(iii)  That by the criteria employed by the council the area was not currently oversubscribed for parking permits.

 

It was RESOLVED:

 

That the application be APPROVED subject to the condition and informatives in the officer’s report.

40d

11/3148/HOT - 88 MANOR GROVE, RICHMOND (Ms Theresa Thatcher) pdf icon PDF 158 KB

Existing timber Cabin in the rear garden of no.88 Manor Grove to be reduced by 4m in length and to be used for a class room and therapy room for the applicant’s son.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: REFUSAL

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Development Control Officer introduced the application and described its history and main elements for consideration and drew attention to the information contained in the addendum, below:

 

Councillor Blakemore has requested that the planning application be heard at committee for the following reasons (summarised)

  • The proposed cabin would be much smaller than the existing structure and would not harm to the character of the area. 
  • The footprint of the cabin would cover less than 50% of the rear garden.
  • There would be no adverse impact to neighbour amenity in terms of loss of daylight and sunlight due to the height of the cabin. 
  • The application is supported by neighbours.
  • Personal circumstances associated with the health of the appellant’s son.

 

Additional comments received from the applicant:

 

  • Reference is made to the refused appeal and various comments made by the Inspector have been drawn on.
  • The current application has taken into account the Inspector’s reasons for refusal.
  • The difference between the refused scheme and current application are highlighted.
  • The proposal is much smaller than the refused application.
  • The proposal only fails the permitted development test on a technicality as part of the building exceeds 2.5m in height within 2m of the boundary.
  • There would be no adverse harm to daylight or sunlight or neighbour amenity.
  • Neighbours support the application.
  • The circumstances of the applicant’s son are a material consideration.
  • The cabin is a temporary structure and could be removed when it is no longer required by the applicant’s son.

 

One additional letter of support had been received raising the following points:

  • The importance of the Cabin for the applicant’s son’s needs
  • The lack of respite care available in Richmond

 

The Committee heard representations in favour of the application from Ms Thatcher (applicant) and Ms Weavers (agent)

 

The Committee also heard a representation from Councillor Blakemore who spoke as an interested councillor.

 

The Committee considered the information in the report and that received from officers and speakers, during these considerations the following salient points were made and themes explored:

 

(i)  That retrospective permission had been refused on the current structure and an appeal turned down by the planning inspector.  The new plans were an attempt to mitigate the inspector’s concerns.

(ii)  That the height of the structure was 30cm over that which would be permitted under permitted development rights, this was not considered to be of great concern but the bulk of the structure was.

(iii)  That the current neighbours did not object to the structure staying in place.

(iv)  That it was possible to grant permission for individuals as opposed to the site, although this was unusual and was acknowledged, must be given careful consideration.  It was confirmed with officers that granting permission based on the exceptional circumstances would not create a precedent to be adhered to in the future applications.

(v)  That the use of, and need for the Cabin was a material consideration for the Committee but that it must be weighed against the harm to the surrounding properties and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40d

40e

11/2723/HOT - 18 PARK DRIVE, EAST SHEEN (Mr Simon Blakebrough) pdf icon PDF 168 KB

Two storey extension to side, single storey extension to rear and loft conversion with rear dormers

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Development Control officer introduced the item for the committee and summarised the central issues.  He referred the committee to the information in the addendum pertaining to a late letter received; as follows:

 

Late letter from No. 20 Park Drive note amendments but objects as follows;

  • Ground floor extension causes terracing effect;
  • Refers to possible exceeding of ‘permitted development’ rules for roof extensions;
  • Excess front rooflights;
  • Rear dormers out of scale and not designed in accordance with Guidelines;
  • Overlooking from rear windows;
  • Concerns about routing of chimney ducts at No.20;
  • Concern about vent pipes;
  • Increased parking pressure;
  • Concern that some works have commenced on site already (Officer note: Not apparent that there are any substantive works requiring planning permission)
  • Letter calculates that this application has attracted more neighbour comments than for other applications on this side of Park Drive.

The Committee heard representations against the application from Mr and Mrs Wood.

 

The Committee heard a representation in favour of the application from Mr Blakebrough (applicant).

 

The Committee considered the information in the report and that received from officers and speakers, during these considerations the following salient points were made and themes explored:

 

(i)  That it was accepted that the work had started without planning permission but that this was not a material consideration for the committee

(ii)  That the materials used would match the existing style.

(iii)  That the size of the development was not considered to be out of scale with the original building by officers but was ultimately a decision to be made by the committee.

(iv)  That times of work could be controlled by other legislation and it was not necessary for the Committee to further condition it.

 

It was RESOLVED:

 

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

40f

11/0812/FUL - 40 SHEEN LANE, EAST SHEEN (Miss Natalie Edmett) pdf icon PDF 233 KB

Change of use from Class A3 to mixed Class A3/A4 and use of the entrance on St Leonard's Road for secondary access to the premises until 10.00pm, after this time all guests will leave via the entrance on Sheen Lane

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Development Control officer introduced the change of use application and drew the attention of the committee to the following correction contained in the addendum:

 

  • Report correction: para. 17, line 4, should read “10.00 p.m.” not 10.30.

 

The Committee heard representations in favour of the application from the applicants, Ms and Mrs Edmett.

 

The Committee considered the information in the report and that received from officers and speakers, during these considerations the following salient points were made and themes explored:

 

(i)  That some of the hours conditions contained in the officer report would conflict with some of the current requirements on the licence.

(ii)  That attempts were being made to restrict disruption to local residents by closing the side door at 10.00 pm.

 

It was RESOLVED:

 

That the application was APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report subject to the deletion of Conditions U45696 and U45697.

 

That conditions U45696 and U45697 be delegated to the Development Control Manager and that revised closing hours be agreed in consultation with Licensing officers and the applicant. 

40g

11/3189/FUL - 11B UPPER TEDDINGTON ROAD, HAMPTON WICK (Cunnane Town Planning for Calmet Laboratory Services) pdf icon PDF 190 KB

Retention of 3 condenser units and two security cages with further pvc white cladding to be attached to external faces of existing steel cages.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Development Control officer introduced application and explained its central tenets to the committee.  There had been no new information received since the application had been published as part of the agenda.

 

The Committee heard a representation against the application from Mr Nowell

 

The Committee heard a representation in favour of the application from Mr Cunnane (agent)

 

The Committee considered the information in the report and that received from officers and speakers, during these considerations the following salient points were made and themes explored:

 

(i)  That the units could not be placed inside the building owing to the need for proper ventilation. 

(ii)  That a deferral could be considered in order to consider better options concealing or siting for the units.

 

It was RESOLVED:

 

That the officer recommendation be NOT APPROVED

 

That the application be DEFERRED in order that the planning officer, applicant and objector can attempt to find a preferable solution to the problem.  Discussion will not be limited to, but should include, issues of camouflage and positioning.

 

That should negotiations be successful the decision to approve plans be delegated to the planning officer concerned.

 

That should negotiations be unsuccessful the new application be brought before the committee for decision. 

40h

11/1836/VRC - 332 UPPER RICHMOND ROAD WEST AND 42 LEINSTER AVENUE, EAST SHEEN (B. Sengani (Top of the Class Nursery)) pdf icon PDF 328 KB

Variation of condition U17620 (Hours and number of children) to Increase the number of children from 50 to 85 of planning permission 07/0956/COU – (Proposed change of use of two dwelling houses to children’s daycare and nursery (use class D1)).

 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Development Control officer introduced application and explained its central tenets to the committee and drew attention to the corrections contained within the addendum, below:

 

  • Report corrections: para 1, line 6 , should refer to boundary fence, not wall.

  Condition NS01- 3rd line, should state 1st December 2012, not 27   October 2012. 

 

The committee heard a representation in favour of the application from the agent Mr Cook.

 

The Committee considered the information in the report and that received from officers and speakers, during these considerations the following salient points were made and themes explored:

 

(i)  Increases in staff that might be required and the effects of any extra staff on parking in the area.

(ii)  The impact of the dropping off of additional children on the locality.

(iii)  The impact of noise from additional children at playtime on neighbouring residents

 

It was RESOLVED:

 

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

 

40i

11/3010/FUL - 12-14 WATER LANE, RICHMOND (Mr S Hanna) pdf icon PDF 3 MB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Development Control officer introduced application and explained its central tenets.  No new information had been received since the publication of the report within the agenda.

 

The Committee heard a representation from Mr Graham (agent)

 

The Committee considered the information in the report and that received from officers and speakers, during these considerations the following salient points were made and themes explored:

 

(i)  That the application addressed many of the previous concerns on a different scheme refused.

(ii)  That the design was conducive with the surrounding area.

 

It was RESOLVED:

 

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

 

40j

11/2688/FUL - QUEENS HOUSE, 2 HOLLY ROAD, TWICKENHAM (CNC Property Fund Management) pdf icon PDF 436 KB

Residential development proposed along the Queen's Road side of the site, consisting of one town house and four apartments. Reconfiguration of the gatehouse at the Holly Road entrance to the car park and additional floor and 3 storey rear extension

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION subject to legal agreement and conditions

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Development Control officer introduced application and explained its central tenets to the committee and drew attention to the further letter received and corrections to the plans and report contained within the addendum, below:

 

One further letter of objection raising the following additional comments:

  • not aware of a site notice being erected by the site
  • ugly, overbearing proposal in a Conservation Area.

 

The Development Control Officer verbally reported the receipt of a letter of objection from 21 Holly Road:

  • Object to additional floor to gatehouse building
  • Potentially over shadowing, daylight and sunlight
  • Overlooking

 

Amended plans received. Full set of plans as follows:

 

·  Plan nos.

G2479(05) 102, 103, 105, 106, 140 received on 11th August 2011,

G2479(05) 100 Rev C, 101 Rev B received on 30th August 2011;

G2479(05) 230 Rev A, 221 Rev A, 220 Rev A, received on 25th October 2011,

G2479(05) 110 Rev E received on 1st November 2011

G2479(05) 215 Rev D, 231 Rev B received on 15th November 2011;

G2470(0) 250 Rev C, 251 Rev C received on 16th November 2011,

G2479(05) 222, 211 Rev E, 212 Rev E, 213 Rev E, 214 Rev E received on 23rd  November 2011

·  Additional relevant policies: CP16 “Local Services/Infrastructure”, CP17 “Health and Well-being” and CP18 “Education and Training”

 

Add the following condition:  DV15 - Window obscure glazed-No openable (all wc / bathroom / ensuite windows on rear elevation / side return at rear)

 

There were no representations from members of the public.

 

The Committee considered the information in the report and that received from officers, during these considerations the following salient points were made and themes explored:

 

(i)  The loss of the gap in the streetscene and the quality of the view that would no longer be visible, which was not deemed to be high.

(ii)  That historically the gap would not have been present.

(iii)  Was considered to be a welcomed infill.

 

 

It was RESOLVED:

 

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

 

 

Updated: 4 April 2014