Apologies were received from Councillor Blakemore.  

Minutes of the Planning Committee held on 7 October 2010 TO FOLLOW.

The minutes of the meeting of 7 October 2010 were agreed 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.

10/2515/FUL – 55 CHURCH STRTEET, TWICKENHAM

Councillor Chappell declared that she had predetermined the application and intended to speak as an interested Councillor.  She undertook to withdraw from the Committee for this item.

10/1750/FUL – PARK HOUSE, STATION ROAD, TEDDINGTON

Councillor Cardy declared a prejudicial interest by virtue of having historical ties with the building and being a Board Member of an office block also primed for redevelopment. He undertook to withdraw from the room for the duration of 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.

Demolition of existing garages and erection of a new single storey house.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

subject to the completion

of a legal agreement

This item was deferred prior to the meeting and will be heard at the Committee meeting of the 4^th November 2010.

Installation of fixed retractable awning on the applicants demised part of the Square, Church Street.

Officer’s recommendation:  REFUSAL

Having declared a predetermination of the matter Councillor Chappell withdrew from the Committee for this item, reserving her right to speak as an interested Councillor.

Having arrived after the start of the item Councillor Fleming did not join the Committee to determine this application.

The Development Control officer introduced the item.  There were no late representations to report or changes to the report.

Representations were heard from Mr Haririan, the applicant, Mr Lyons, local traders’ association representative and Mr Williams, local resident, who all spoke in favour of the application.  The Committee also heard representations from interested Councillors, Chappell and Naylor. 

It was RESOLVED:

1.                    that the officer recommendation for refusal be NOT approved

2.                    that the application be APPROVED for the following reasons:

By reason of the siting, design and change in colour of the awning, and with safeguarding conditions, the scheme will preserve the vitality of the town centre, overcome previous Inspectors concerns and not detract from character, appearance and setting of the conservation area, and surrounding properties, and not represent a visually intrusive form of development.  For such reasons the scheme will not prejudice the aims of policy.

The following conditions were imposed on the decision:

Prior to the installation of the awning hereby approved, details of the finish, colour and fabric of the awning shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The development shall only be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme.  REASON:  To preserve the character, appearance and setting of the site and conservation area in general.

(i)      This permission shall be for a limited period of 3 years only, expiring on 27th October 2013 when the awning and works carried out under this permission shall be removed and the land reinstated to its former condition to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.  REASON:  To allow the Local Planning authority to review the condition of the materials over the extended period of time.

Single storey mansard style roof extension to provide 8 no. residential units to existing office building with the provision of stair access cores and associated site works.Erection of side extensions and alterations to front facing facade at ground and first floor level (Amended Plans).

Officer’s recommendation:  REFUSAL

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and reported the following late representation, correction and addition to the report:

·         Late representation from Councillor Blakemore:
‘I am a North Richmond Ward Councillor and fully support the residents of Trinity Village in agreement with the Planning Officers that this Application should be refused. The design issues have not been resolved but of greater importance for the residents, the considerable congestion and health and safety issues in this overcrowded corner of Richmond would be significantly worsened if this application was to be approved.’

·         Correction at paragraph 9, the appeal hearing is on the 8^th December not early November as stated.

·         Addition at paragraph 17 to include reference to an additional letter received objecting to the scheme, the issues raised include loss of privacy to Victoria Villas, design and materials, increase in traffic and pollution.

Representations were heard from Mr Paul Bowen, a local resident, who spoke against the application.

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

Change of use of Park House from offices (B1) to hotel (C1). Demolition of existing studio building and replacement with four storey building containing offices and restaurant.(B1/A3).

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

subject to the completion

of a Section 106 Agreement

Having declared a prejudicial interest in the item Councillor Cardy withdrew from the Committee and left the room for the duration of the item.

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

• Paragraph 7 amended to read:

‘92 properties in the vicinity were directly consulted and objections have been received from five properties in Bridgeman Road, three in Station Road and 1 on the High Street Teddington. The objections are made on the following grounds:’

• Paragraph 30 amended to read:

‘I therefore recommend PERMISSION, subject to the following conditions and informatives and subject to a s106 agreementsecuring monies towards landscaping improvements in the close vicinity (£20,000) and restrictions preventing the charging of guests for parking within hotel parking area and preventing issuing of parking permits for use in the Controlled Parking Zone:’

Representations were heard from Mr Chris Down, the agent, who spoke in favour of the application.

It was RESOLVED that the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives in the officer’s report and subject to the completion of a Section 106 agreement, the details of which were also contained in the officer’s report.

Alterations to the flank and rear elevations, including installation of solar panels on roof of existing flank dormer, in connection with the conversion of first floor Sunday School building to provide five self-contained flats.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

subject to the completion

of a Section 106 Agreement

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and reported the receipt of one late representation from a local resident set out below:

“1. As part of the approval, if given, it is absolutely NECESSARY that the facility below the flats be fully soundproofed:

A.   All windows should be double-glazed so as noise does not escape. 

B.   Air conditioning should be available in rooms used by NOISY users [ie. orchestra/choir practice] so as it is NOT necessary/permissible to open the windows allowing the sound to echo out and up;  as well as out period. 

C.    ALL USE OF THE CHURCH FACILITIES is limited to a finish time of 9 pm.   Currently, including noisy departures, it sometimes extends until 10.30pm which is not acceptable to us and we doubt would be acceptable to new residents, even with soundproofing, which we doubt will be designed to prevent orchestral noise ! 

D.   If, however, there are physical or cost limitations to the installation of soundproofing, double glazing and air-conditioning then ‘noisy’ evening events will NOT be acceptable at all, otherwise we expect there will be constant complaints from the new residents;  not to mention residents within earshot, ie. in Oaklands Road.   THIS ASPECT NEEDS TO BE FULLY CLARIFIED.

2.   The fact that residents'/visitors' parking permits will not be granted for the flats will need to be absolutely and adequately addressed in the planning approval, if given, rather than just a casual statement – i.e. who, how etc.

3.    The question of consultation in respect of a construction programme, construction dust and debris, and traffic/parking issues needs to be addressed;  specifically with residents and not just council groups [ e.g. transport] before the work starts.

4.   The statement that there was a large number of letters of support is totally misleading and misdirected and the reasons for this have been well documented previously.”

The Development Control officer responded to the points contained in the late representation.

Representations were heard from Mr Talliss, the agent and Mrs Harrop, a user of the Church facilities, who both spoke in favour of the application.

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

Submission of details pursuant to conditions U30004 (Details materials to be approved), U30010 (Sample panels of render and cladding), U30011 (Sample panel of brickwork) of planning permission 09/2104/FUL.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

This item was withdrawn from the Committee agenda prior to the meeting.