Apologies were received from Councillors Mathias and Palmer who had sent Councillors Stockley and Naylor as substitutes respectively.

Minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 29 July 2010 (attached)

The minutes of the meeting of the 29 July 2010 were approved 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.

10/1849/VRC – TWICKENHAM RFU STADIUM, RUGBY ROAD, TWICKENHAM

Councillor Coombs declared a personal interest in this item by virtue of being employed by Universal Music who will represent some of the performers on the evening.

Councillors Jaeger declared a prejudicial interest in this item by virtue of her Chairman ship of the RFU Liaison Committee and undertook to leave the room for the duration of the item.

Councillor Linnette declared a prejudicial interest in this item by virtue of having an established friendship with the Concert Promoter and undertook to leave the Chair and the room for this item.

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.

Erection of a three storey plus basement development of 5 no. one bedroom units.

Officer’s recommendation: PERMISSION (subject to conditions and informatives in the report and the completion of a Section 106 securing monies in accordance with the Planning Obligation Strategy, restriction of parking permits and membership of a car club) 

The Development Control Officer presented the report and in addition reported the receipt of the late correspondence from Mrs Finzi and detailed the main points to the committee.  Printed copies of the e-mail were also tabled in order that Councillors had sight of it in full.

The Development Control Officer also reported the receipt of the following correspondence since the report had been published:

Email from Zac Goldsmith MP:

·         Highlights residents concerns and previous reasons for refusal

·         Asks that the continuing concern of residents are give the required weight

·         Asks the council to thoroughly examine whether the previous reasons for rejection have been adequately addressed

·         Loss of visual amenity, over development, impact on access to highways

·         This application must be judged by the same standards

·         Prior concerns must be taken into account

·         Crucial that residents feel this is a transparent, fair and open process.

Emails from Cllr Fleming:

·         Impact on resins in Retreat Road

·         Request neighbours get view of photographs

Mr Cobb (7 emails):

·         Unneighbourly, impact on visual amenity, loss of light

·         Lack of contributions towards infrastructure

·         Density, size, height

·         Unsuitability of site and impacts n conservation area

·         Requests previous officer attends the Planning Committee

·         Previous reason fro refusal should be taken into account and not overcome previous reasons for refusal

·         Delay to view report on website

·         Lack of consultation with neighbours

·         Request for photographs.

1 email from 4 Water Lane:

Best proposal that I have seen from this site, please to see suggestions have been considered, and compliments industrial aesthetic of the warehouses.  However, proposal still presents major problems for residents of the Retreat – very close to the wall, height, bulk, size

1 email from 30 Swan Court received very late and tabled at the meeting, objecting to the proposals and summarised for the committee verbally by the Development Officer. 

The Committee heard representations form Mr Cobb, Mr Collins, Mr Graham, Mr McKenzie and Mr Roberts.

The Committee RESOLVED:

1.                  That the recommendation of the Planning Officer be NOT adopted

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

• The proposal, by reason of the height, size, bulk and siting of the development, would result in an un-neighbourly visually intrusive and overbearing development, to the windows of habitable rooms to two flats on the second and third floors of 27-34 Retreat Road, to the detriment of the amenities of the occupiers of the flats. It would thereby be contrary to policies HSG11, BLT11 and BLT16 of the adopted Richmond upon Thames Unitary Development Plan: First Review 2005; policy CP7 of the Adopted Core Strategy; and adopted Supplementary Planning Document ‘Small and Medium Housing Sites 2006’

• The proposal, by virtue of its siting, layout, design would result in substandard residential accommodation, whereby the units would experience unacceptable outlook and light.  The scheme is thereby contrary to policies BLT11, BLT15, HSG11, HSG18 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan: Review 2005, Policy CP7 and CP14 of the Approved Core Strategy 2009, Supplementary Planning Document ‘Residential  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15a

Retention of 1.1m high railings enclosing 1st floor roof area with the erection of an iron screen above the railings and provision of an iron table/bench (attached to railings) in connection with the use of the flat roof area as a terrace.

Officer’s recommendation: REFUSAL

The Development Control Officer presented the report and referred Councillors to the written statement received from Councillor Fleming, since the publication of the report, contained in the addendum.  The statement was as follows:

Written statement from Cllr Fleming:

“I am on holiday this week otherwise I would have spoken in support of Ms Liddar and I have asked for a written statement to be drawn to the attention of the committee.

1.      Because of requirements by the Environmental Health department, Ms Liddar has had to install railings on the roof space though no such requirement has been made of the occupiers at No 9 who are free to use their roof area.

2.      It is my understanding the stairs were put in to access the roof and not for maintenance purposes only, as suggested in the Officer’s report.

3.      The Inspector accepted that the railings are not visually intrusive and only found them unacceptable because they might  allow people to stand closer to the boundary with No 3 Albert Road.

4.      Ms Liddar has addressed this by installing a bench facing away from No 3, with a mesh screen, which in my view does not appear dominant or obtrusive viewed from Albert Road.  

5.      There is no garden; and the use of the roof area for sitting out is not disputed

I live in the Alberts area myself and with relatively small properties all situated close together it is impossible to avoid some overlooking.  I assume that if Ms Liddar occupied the property herself she would be able to access the roof area in the same way as her neighbours, and it is only because she lets it that Environmental Health have required safety railings. By installing the bench and screen she has in my view overcome the Inspector’s concern about privacy.

There are a number of points in the Officer’s report that I believe need clarification, some of which Ms Liddar will undoubtedly cover in her own submission.”

Printed copies were tabled for the Councillors to view.

The Committee heard a representation from Ms Liddar.

The Committee RESOLVED that the application be refused for the reasons set out in the officer’s report.

Alterations including construction of a part single, part two storey rear extension.

Officer’s recommendation: PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer presented the report and also informed the Committee of the following late representation received:

·         Late email received from owner of No 77 Park Road objecting on the following grounds:

o        2-storey proposals out-of-keeping with existing rear elevations on Park

o        Overdevelopment by way of the ‘mass’ or bulk

o        Precedent setting

The Committee heard representations from Mr Hutton, Mr Milson and Mr Tomlinson.

The Committee RESOLVED:

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

(a)         That the front elevation be pebbledash finished

(b)   That no flanking windows be added to the extension in the future.

Extension of time to an approved planning application 06/2901/FUL for installation of telecommunications base stations, to include 3 antennas, 3 no. 600mm dishes and 6 equipment cabinets, together with associated works.

Officer’s recommendation: PERMISSION

The Development Officer presented the report to the Committee and also reported the receipt of the following additional representations from members of the public:

·         One letter from a local resident, querying the extent of public consultation and speed with which application is being considered.

• Two representations from local residents, objecting on the following grounds:

-          Failure to implement the scheme when originally approved suggests that there is no real need; why could the existing installation at Carmichael Court not be shared?

-          The installation would be visible from many locations in the vicinity and the proposal would fail to protect and enhance the conservation area, would be visible from the Chiswick side of the river and would be most visible from the residential hinterland to the rear;

-          Potential impact on health;

-          Whilst this is a renewal, the previous decision failed to fully take account of all the material considerations (visual impact and health issues).

No representations were heard from members of the public.

The Committee RESOLVED that the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives in the officer’s report.

Variation of Condition 2 (U09030) of planning permission 06/0154/FUL dated 18 April 2006 to increase the stadium capacity from 55,000 to 60,000 for 1 no. Help for Heroes charity concert to be held on 12 September 2010.

Officer’s recommendation: PERMISSION (subject to conditions and completion of S106 agreement)

Councillor Coombs moved, seconded by Councillor Chappell, that Councillor Miller take the Chair for this item and the motion was passed unanimously.

Having declared prejudicial interests in the item to be discussed Councillors Jaeger and Linnette left the room.

The Development Control Officer presented the report to the Committee and reported the receipt of three additional letters since the publication of the report from the Metropolitan Police, LB Hounslow and South West Trains confirming that they held no objections to the application.

Representations were heard from Mr Cox and Mr Pullen.

The Committee RESOLVED that the application be APPROVED subject the conditions and informatives in the Officer’s report.

Demolition of existing single storey retail units. Construction of four storey building consisting of a ground level retail unit and four residential units above.

Officer’s recommendation: PERMISSION (subject to completion of a legal agreement)

Councillor Jaeger re-joined the Committee as did Councillor Linnette who returned to the Chair.

The Development Control Officer presented the report to the Committee and made the following amendment to condition NS04:

·         A privacy screen shall be provided to the rear terrace of unit 2, in accordance with details that have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The screen shall be installed in accordance with the details thus approved prior to occupation of unit 2 and shall be permanently retained to the satisfaction of the Council.

REASON: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring occupiers.

The Committee heard a representation from Miss Pletts

The Committee RESOLVED that the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives in the officer’s report.

Erection of 3 single storey extensions to existing care home to provide 4 new bedrooms, and alterations to provide revised daycare accommodation and a 20 bedroom dementia unit.

Officer’s recommendation: PERMISSION

The Development Control officer presented the report to the Committee.

There were no additions or amendments to the report and no representations from the public were heard.

The Committee RESOLVED that the application be APPROVED.