Minutes of the Planning Committee held on 12 August 2010 TO FOLLOW.

The minutes of the meeting held on 12 August 2010 were approved as a correct record of proceedings and the Chairman authorised to sign them.

[Following Member discussion regarding the enforceability of condition (b), minute 15C - 10/1381/HOT, the legal department would review the standard condition.]

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

10/0080/DD01 - ST MARY'S AND ST PETER'S PRIMARY SCHOOL, SOMERSET ROAD, TEDDINGTON (Council application)

Councillor Morris declared a prejudicial interest in this item by virtue of her membership of the Cabinet and undertook to retire from the Committee and leave the room for the duration of the 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.

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of 58 homes comprising 14 no. 3 bedroom and 10 no. 4 bedroom houses and one apartment block providing 15 no. 1 bedroom, 15 no. 2 bedroom and 4 no. 3 bedroom apartments together with associated car parking, landscaping and access.

Officer’s recommendation:  REFUSAL

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and reported the following amendments and additional correspondence:

• The internal layout of the flats has been altered to show an increase in the proportion of affordable housing now being proposed to 52% (5 houses, 25 flats). Along with a Draft Planning Agreement covering necessary planning obligations were the application to be approved.

• A further letter of support for the proposal has been received from an Elmtree Road resident.

• Additional Informative
• IL05 Decision Drawing numbers – SK01-P1, A-3070A, 1774-A-1000-A, A-1001-A, C-1005-L, A-1210-A, A-3000-F, A-3004-D, C-3020-K, C-3030-E, C-3040-E, C-3050-G, A-3060-D, C-3061-C, A-3071-A received on 21^st May 2010;  1774-A-1200-G, A-1201-E, C-3006-D, 1005-O, A-1103-D, C-3005-E received on 4^th August 2010; 1774-A-3001-K, A-3002-L, A-3003-L received on 20^th August 2010

The Committee heard representations from Mrs J Doherty, Mr Gleave, Mr R Mullet, Mr A Spagnoletti, Miss K Wass, Mr A Williams and from Councillor Cardy and Councillor Elloy who spoke as interested councillors.

The Committee RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for the reasons set out in the officer's report and the following additional reason:

The design of the proposal is of a high density development which, by reason of its form and massing as a residential scheme, is out of character with and detrimental to the prevailing residential character of the locality and harmful to the visual amenities of the street scene. As such the proposal is contrary to policy BLT11 of The London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Unitary Development Plan - First Review Adopted March 2005.

Provision of details pursuant to conditions:

§         U31122 Construction Method Statement

§         U31136 Air Source Heat Pumps

§         U31151 Phasing Details

§         U45502 Construction Traffic (informative only & does not require approval from the LPA)

Officer’s recommendation: PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and reported the following amendments:

• Amended drawings received clarifying amended phasing programme
• P. 9; Summary of Application; 5^th line; add after ‘….details and a plant…’
• P 11; recommendation IL5 delete Dwg Nos 110D,111 & 112 & insert ‘110E, 111B & 112B received 20 August 2010’ ; insert after ‘Sequencing Strategy Part C phasing dates superseded by aforementioned drawings,; delete ‘Site Traffic Management Plan received 16 June 2010, 16 July 2010 & 13 August 2010’.

Councillor Morris was not present for the duration of this item.

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

Erection of buildings comprising basement, ground and 3-4 floors above to provide 3029m2 of office floor space, 77 residential units (49 private and 28 affordable) and 85 car parking spaces and cycle parking provision.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION, subject to the

completion of a Section 106 Agreement

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and reported the following amendments:

Replace Heads of Terms, bullet point 2:

£50,000 towards the introduction of a controlled parking zone or suitable alternative mitigation measures together with a loading bay (and associated traffic orders)

Condition NS09 – secure the implementation of service bay prior to occupation of the commercial units.

The Development Control Officer reported the following:

Add condition:  Prior to the occupation of the commercial or residential units hereby approved, all the parking in the basement shall have been provided and ready for use.  REASON:  To ensure the development does not prejudice the free flow of traffic and highway and pedestrian safety.

Add condition:  Notwithstanding what is shown on the approved drawings, the plans on the Market Road frontage are not consistent with the elevations (with respect to the curtain walling).  Prior to the commencement of development, a detailed scheme showing the plans consistent with the elevations shall be submitted to and approved in writing with the Local Planning Authority.  REASON:  To ensure an acceptable form of development.

Correct para. 83.  Hammond Vivian building is two storeys not three.

The Committee heard representations from Mr M Baker, Mr Caneparo, Mr W Collis, Mr G Dowden and Councillor Harborne who spoke as an interested councillor.

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

10/0192/FUL: Demolition of existing garage and erection of pair of semi detached house and one bedroom flat.

Officer’s recommendation: REFUSAL, had an appeal

against non determination not been lodged

10/1530/FUL: Demolish existing garage and erection of a pair of semi detached houses.

Officer’s recommendation: PERMISSION

This item was for two separate planning applications (10/1530/FUL & 10/0192/FUL) which were to be heard separately.

10/1530/FUL:

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

• An adjoining neighbour has written, reiterating objections concerning the acceptability of the proposals, the loss of trees and flooding/groundwater related matters along with wider concerns. These have been tabled.

The Committee heard representations from Mr N Davis, Mr Steward and Councillor Arbour who spoke as an interested councillor.

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

The applicant chose to withdraw the second application (10/0192/FUL) and the application was not heard.

Amendment to previously approved application 08/2306/FUL for 5 x 4 bed townhouses and 2 x 1 bed flats with associated landscaping and parking to allow for an alleyway to the rear of the properties to provide access to private gardens.

Officer’s recommendation: PERMISSION

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

§         Cllr. Nicholson has written as follows:

“Please accept my apologies for not being at the Planning Committee in person but I am away at present.

The original plan for this development stated that it had taken access and layout arrangements into account following the UDP BLT11.  Why has this changed then and access like this deemed necessary?  At the time of the original submission the absence of an alley way was pointed out as an advantage. 

There are three things for you to have regard to:

• Firstly introducing one takes away private amenity space from the new houses.
• Secondly BLT 17 states that the layout of buildings should deter crime and reduce the fear of crime.  The provision of an alleyway does not accomplish this. We cannot assume that “good, natural surveillance” will happen as many residents are out during the day.  If a security gate is to be provided this should be as a condition not an ‘encouragement’.
• Thirdly thought must be given to the trees that appear from the drawings on the original planning application.  They were there partly to be kept as a barrier to give some privacy for the residents of Malvern Road whose gardens back onto this new development.  They now appear to be in the alleyway.  Are they to be removed for access?

Please have consideration to all these points before making your decision.”

The Committee heard representations from Mr J Gilbert and Councillor Elloy who spoke as an interested councillor.

The Committee RESOLVED that the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report and the following additional condition:

That a security gate shall be erected, at the access to the rear alley way, in accordance with details to be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and maintained thereafter.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities and security of neighbouring property.

Conversion of six self contained flats into single family house.

Officer’s recommendation:  REFUSAL

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and reported the following additional information:

Additional information: A copy of LBRuT 2006 Local Housing Needs Assessment (LHNA) was provided by the applicant for consideration on 19/08/2010.

Response to the additional information: With respect to the LHNA, the applicant refers specifically to a table on page 4 of the executive summary titled ‘Minimum property prices/rent in Richmond upon Thames’. Based on the rents the applicant charges for the existing residential units within the building, the applicant states that in comparison to the borough wide minimum property prices, rental prices at 36 Cambridge Park are substantially higher and are not therefore an ‘affordable place to live’ nor suitable for ‘young and transient groups’.

Whilst the rents charged by the applicant are not supported by evidence it is noted, that two of the units the applicant is renting out as one bedroom units, the Council maintains should be non self contained bedsit accommodation (and has issued an enforcement notice required reinstatement). Should the lawful use of the building be reinstated, it is likely that the rents applicable for such units would be considerable reduced allowing them to be more affordable and accessible to ‘young and transient groups’. Notwithstanding, even if the rents in these units could be proven to be considerably higher than the borough wide average, they still provide a cheaper and more affordable option than owner-occupation and also contribute toward the borough’s stock of small units, which as outlined in policy Core Strategy policy CP14 (e) there is an identified need.

The applicant also comments within his supporting statement that the proposal would, despite current planning policies, contribute to meeting a local housing need. The applicant bases this comment on a table extracted again from the LHNA (pp. 9) titled ‘Total shortfall (or surplus)’.

This table is based on preference not necessarily reality, and the content should not be extrapolated as proof of demand/supply to determine a planning application.

The supporting text to the table (which has not been included in the applicants Statement) sets out the broader conclusions that can be taken from this information. Regarding the owner-occupied sector, it notes that household projections indicate that there will be an increasing proportion of one person households in the borough in the next fifteen years. Households may prefer larger homes but can only afford smaller homes. This has driven the policy requirement for small units in the private sector. Based on expected number of bedrooms the 4+ bed houses shortfall is lower. The conclusion in the report also notes that all dwelling sizes in the private rented sector show a surplus since many households view this sector as an undesirable long term solution whilst the supply of private rented housing is likely to be large due to the temporary nature of the tenure. 

This assessment was used to inform policies in the Council’s Local Development Framework, forming one part of the bigger picture, with policies setting out a borough-wide strategic  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18f

New boundary wall, parking space and vehicular crossover.

Officer’s recommendation: REFUSAL

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

Further representation from local resident as he is unable to attend –

• Visibility sight lines have not been met; in this instance on one side of the opening is an existing high hedge, no way a car leaving the proposed parking space could see oncoming pedestrians.  Note that children to and from school use this road.
• Montague Road is over subscribed on parking permits issued.  The SPD states that where CPZs are over capacity the removal of parking spaces will not be allowed.
• It should be noted that most of the neighbours supporting the application have the benefit of off-street parking and are not directly affected.
• Shame that the existing boundary wall and garden have been removed.

Email received from Cllr Fleming asking for case to be referred to Committee in the event of a recommendation for approval.  The email also forwarded a further email from the applicant which included a number of points in support of the application –

• 10 Letters of support from neighbours.
• 2. We have spent over £550,000 on this property with the view to bringing it back to the character of the surrounding properties.
• 3. We are prepared to alter the plan in an attempt to satisfy Highways.
• 4 The frontage of the property as it is at present not in keeping with others in the road, Looks quite unsightly.(mentioned in several letters). Seems as if planning wish it to remain so.
• 5. We were informed by that when we acquire the Garden flat (who was the person who made objections) we would be more likely to receive a satisfactory result. They have sold, and we own the entire property.
• 6. Planning by the previous administration was recommended but refused by committee, due only to incorrect measurements and the objections of number 5 as above.
• 7. Inspector of Appeal also said he liked our proposal, but upheld the committee's decision only on the grounds that it would not be in the interests of the occupants of the Garden flat.

The Committee heard representations from Mr J Sykes-Brown.

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

Retention of the rear/side extension, detached summerhouse and trellis on top, decking and lean to bicycle shed to the front of the property.

Officer’s recommendation: REFUSAL, Enforcement Action

and Court Action in the

event of non-compliance

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and reported the following amendments to the report:

• P63 Summary of Application ; 6^th line, delete ‘the summerhouse & attached’

• P 64, para 1, 5^th line insert after ‘No 10 [three doors from the application site]’
• P67, para 21, 3^rd line , insert after  ‘railway line & public footpath,’
• P69, Reason for refusal, 1^st line; delete ‘The summerhouse & attached trellis’ & insert ‘The trellis attached to the roof of the summer house,’
• P69 Reason, 5^th line delete ‘summerhouse/’
• P70, 2^nd line  delete ‘or b) the removal of the summerhouse & trellis on top’
• P70, Reason,  delete ‘The summerhouse & attached trellis’ & insert ‘The trellis attached to the roof of the summer house,’ 5^th line delete ‘summerhouse/’

There were no representations from the public.

The Committee RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for the reasons set out in the officer's report and that an ENFORCEMENT NOTICE be issued to secure the removal of the trellis with a compliance period of 6 months and COURT ACTION if the notice is not complied with.