Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

None.

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.

12/0648/FUL – ST STEPHENS C of E JUNIOR SCHOOL, QUEENS ROAD, RICHMOND

Councillor Naylor declared a prejudicial interest in the application above by virtue of his role as a Governor at the School and undertook to leave the Committee and the room for the duration of the item.

12/0668/FUL & 12/0669/LBC – 22 CHURCH STREET, TWICKENHAM

Councillor Naylor declared that he had predetermined the matter above and would withdraw from the Committee for the duration of the item.  He would speak instead as an Interested Councillor.

To consider the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 19 April 2012 ATTACHED.

The minutes of the previous meeting held on the 19^th April 2012 were agreed as a correct 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.

Change from a 4 Form Entry (4FE) Infant and Nursery School to a 2 Form Entry (2FE) Primary and Nursery School. Four new classrooms on the north-eastern boundary, a hall, a new nursery building, provision of a games area and the reconfiguration/refurbishment of the existing school building.

Officer’s recommendation: PERMISSION

[Councillor Churchill was not present to hear this item]

The Development Control officer introduced the item and reported the following amendments to the report, made by officers following publication of the agenda.

• Para 10. delete first 2 sentences & insert ‘Currently the school capacity is 360 with 26 nursery places giving a maximum of 386. The proposal will increase the capacity to 420 with 26 nursery places; 446 maximum’
• Para 16 After the first sentence insert ‘They will have green roofs on the flat sections.’
• Para 50; 4^th line insert ‘not’ after ‘do’
• Page 15; Condition DV48 Delete & insert ‘2011-162/100 Rev A, 2011-162/111, 2011-162/101, 2011-162/102, 2011-162/103, 2011-162/104, 2011-162/105, 2011-162/106, 2011-162/107, 2011-162/108, 2011-162/109, 2011-162/110, 2011-162/208 received 17^th February 2012, 2011-162/200 Rev F, 2011-162/206 Rev A, 2011-162/209 Rev A, 2011-162/210 Rev A, 2011-162/212 Rev B, 2011-162/802 Rev A received 4^th May 2012, 2011-162/201 Rev B received 10^th May 2012; 2011-162/202 Rev C, 2011/203 Rev C, 2011-162/204 Rev B, 2011-162/205 Rev C, 2011-162/207 Rev C, 2011-162/211 Rev B
• Page 17; Condition NS08 Delete ‘park’ & insert ‘parking’

The Committee heard representations against the application from David Bonney Paul Green and Gareth Williams (Local residents).

The Committee heard representations in favour of the application from DLA Architects (Agent) and Miss Jane Evans (Headteacher).

The Committee considered the information received from officers and from those who had made representations in addition to that contained in the report and addendum.  They discussed the application and in particular they considered the following themes:

(i)      The closure of the existing gap and possible loss of amenity to residents.  The Committee was not united on the harm caused by what was agreed as a partial closure.

(ii)    The layout of the design and the restrictions to redesigning the school.

(iii)   That the area was not a conservation area.

It was RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives in the officers report.

Erection of a two storey modular school building. 

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

[Councillor Churchill joined the meeting]

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and briefly outlined the relevant points contained within the application. 

There were no representations or amendments made or received following the publication of the agenda to be reported.

The Committee heard representations against the application from Mr David Sanders, local resident.

The Committee heard representations in favour of the application from Mattheu Clarke, planning Consultant and Sylvester Olutayo, LBRuT Officer reading a statement on behalf of the Headteacher.

The Committee considered the information received from officers and from those who had made representations in addition to that contained in the report.  The application was discussed and in particular the following themes were considered:

(i)      That the design was not exceptional, however this was not to be expected as it was a functional building with a medium term life of approx 40 years.

(ii)    In addition the lack of design features would facilitate speed of erection.

(iii)   Furthermore the surrounding buildings were not of particular design note.

(iv)  The possibility of increased noise from the additional condenser unit was dismissed on advice from officers that levels would not be significantly increased.

(v)    The addition of a further informative that would encourage the architect to reflect the capping of the roof.

It was RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives in the officers report and an additional informative to express the sentiment in (v) above:

“The applicants are encouraged to introduce a deeper eave line to the building hereby approved”.

Expansion into a 2 form entry (2FE) primary school incorporating a 2 storey new build block to contain classrooms and other teaching spaces. Extension to entrance, four classrooms and offices in existing main building. Reconfiguration and upgrade of playground and perimeter.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

Having declared a prejudicial interest in the matter at hand, councillor Naylor withdrew from the Committee and the room, having made his representation as an interested Councillor.

The Development Control Officer introduced the item for the Committee and briefly discussed the key themes within the application.  Inn addition he reported the following amendments made by officers to the report following the publication of the agenda.

• Para 25. 3^rd line delete ‘around’ & insert ‘on the rear elevation of the platform’
• Para 33; add ‘5 parking permits have been agreed with the applicant as a compromise but this can be reviewed in the light of the Travel Plan & if & when the CPZ is introduced & experienced.’
• Page 36; Condition DV43B ‘5 parking permits as a maximum’
• New Condition; NS07 Highway work: The development shall not be occupied until the existing signage/zig zags be improved and the additional guardrailing required in front of the widened pedestrian entrance be erected on Winchester Road’

·         New Condition : NS08 Site Supervision: No works or development shall take place until a scheme of supervision for the arboricultural protection measures has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.  This scheme will be appropriate to the scale and duration of the works and should include: A) Details of a representative from the Local Authority to be invited to attend the pre start meeting with the Applicant’s Arboricultural Consultant. B) Details of induction and personnel awareness of on site arboricultural matters. C) Identification of individual responsibilities of those carrying out the development and key personnel. D) Statement of delegated powers. E) Timing and methods of site visiting and record keeping, including updates. F) Procedures for dealing with variations and incidents. G) Details of how copies of site inspection records are to be supplied to the local authority’s Arboricultural team to help monitor tree protection measures. The site supervision must be formulated in accordance with section 6.3 of BS5837:2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction – Recommendations. REASON: To ensure that tree (s) are not damaged or otherwise adversely affected by the building operations

• New non standard informative NI03: ‘With regard to condition NS07 the applicant will need to fund these works which are carried out by the Council’s contractor’

The Committee heard representations in favour of the application from Mr Julian Lipscombe, Agent and Mr J Booker, Consultant.

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

The Committee considered the information received from officers in addition to that contained in the report and addendum.  They discussed the application with regard to this information and considered the following themes:

(i)      The offer of opaque glass on the teaching platform to allay residents concerns and the desire from the school for the glass to remain clear.  The Committee felt that the condition was necessary.

(ii)    That the design was modern and whilst not unanimously popular, was felt to be in keeping with the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8c

Demolition of existing two storey dwelling and erection of new two storey dwelling (revisions to approved application 11/2210/FUL).

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the report to the Committee and referred to the key issues contained within it. 

There were no further amendments to report.

No representations were made.

The Committee discussed the application before them, briefly dwelling on the issues of roof lighting and tree planting.  The former not being of concern to the majority of the committee and the latter having been already conditioned within the officer’s report, the committee moved to the vote.

It was RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives within the Officer’s report.

Single storey rear extension.

Officer’s recommendation: PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the report to the Committee and outlined the application before them.  In addition he reported the following change to drawings received following the publication of the report:

• Revised plan received showing eaves and gutter detail at a larger scale.  Replace drawing number 17 rev. B with 17 rev. C received on 23 May 2012 on condition DV44.

It was reported that the application was before the committee as it belonged to an officer employed within the Development Control Team and that no objections had been received.

The Committee briefly discussed the application and had regard for the possibility that there might be a well in the garden.  However the majority view was that, owing to the vagueness of the assertion and that it was already likely to be in a state of disrepair, the harm was not great enough to warrant a refusal.

It was RESOLVED

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

Having declared that he had pre-determined the matter, Councillor Naylor withdrew from the Committee for the duration of the item, instead exercising his right to speak as an Interested Councillor.

The Development Control Officer introduced the item, and described for the committee its key themes and in particular the limitations of what could be reviewed under the application before them.  In addition she reported the following amendments made by officers following publication of the agenda.

Amend Enforcement Action to read:

• Within 56 days of the date of this decision, the applicants shall submit an application for the removal of unauthorised roof and timber covering rear light well, making good, and the reinstatement of fenestration.

Add informative to read:

• The applicants are advised to contact the case officer to discuss details of fenestration, and light well.

The Committee heard representations in favour of the application from Olivio Te, applicant.

The Committee heard a representation from Councillor Naylor who spoke as an Interested Councillor.

The Committee considered the information received from officers in addition to that contained in the report, addendum and given verbally by those making representations.  In particular they discussed the following themes:

(i)      The Committee expressed sympathy for the applicant and the difficulties they face from changes made to a listed building before they had leased it.

(ii)    The need to protect listed buildings and their importance to town locations such as this one.

It was RESOLVED

1. That application 12/0668/FUL be refused for the reasons set out in the officers report

2. That application listed building consent 12/0669/LBC be refused for the reasons set out in the officers report.

3. That the decision to enforce against the breaches of planning consent be deferred.

4. That the deferral of enforcement be for three months.

5. That the soonest Committee after 3 months had elapsed consider again the issue of enforcement.