Minutes of the Planning Committee held on 18 November 2010 TO FOLLOW

The Minutes of the meeting held on 18^th November 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.

10/2783/HOT – 79 Queens Road, Twickenham

Councillor Chappell declared that she had already formed a view and was pre-determined on this application.  She reported that she would be speaking as an interested Councillor on the item in question and undertook to withdraw from the Committee 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.

09/0965/FUL - Demolition of roof coverings above yard area, conversion and extension of existing buildings to three offices (B1), together with the five new houses with associated site works.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION, subject to the

completion of a Section 106 Agreement

09/0966/CAC - Conservation Area Consent for demolition of roof coverings and other works.

Officer’s recommendation:  Conservation Area Consent

be GRANTED

The Development Control Officer reported that this item had been withdrawn from the agenda for the meeting in order that a procedural matter could be resolved.  It would return to the committee for determination in the near future.

Demolition of single storey rear extension, rear chimney and garage. Proposed loft conversion with dormer window to rear, single storey rear extension with first floor balcony, two storey side extension and single storey side extension.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

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

• Correction to Revised Standard Informative U49954:

                   “Drawing Numbers: 493/A3/100, 493/A3/120 A, 493/A3/121 A, 493/A3/130, 493/A3/110 A, 493/A3/111 and 493/A3/112 received 14th July 2010; 493/A3/300, 493/A3/301 D, 493/A3/310 D, 493/A3/311 B, 493/A3/312 A, 493/A3/313 B, 493/A3/320 C, 493/A3/321 B and 493/A3/330 B received 5th November 2010.”

·         Petition with 62 signatures, objecting on grounds of overbearing impact, less landscaping and loss of open space and gap views, received.

·         Two further letters of objection received.  Letters objected on grounds of loss of parking, loss of privacy and sunlight, overshadowing, overbearing impact and the impact on the street scene.

The Committee heard representations against the application from residents of Burges Grove, Mr. Nicholas Jay, Mr. Edwin Kirker and (Councillor) Mrs. Rita Palmer.  [Councillor Rita Palmer spoke as a resident of Burgess grove and not in her capacity as a Councillor.  She declared a prejudicial interest and withdrew from the room on completion of her representation].

The Committee heard representations in support of the application from Ms Anne Shepherd (Architect) and Mr Abdul Wahid Butt (Applicant).

The committee discussed the following themes:

·         The loss of space between houses and the possibility of protecting the trees and landscaping on the application site.

·         The visual impact of having three cars standing in the driveway.

·         Consultation arrangements by the applicant and the possibility of deferring the application as suggested by residents who had opposed it.  This option did not have the majority support of the committee and was rejected in the grounds that no new information could be sought during any deferral period.

It was RESOLVED:

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

·         That a condition be imposed preventing external lighting in association with the scheme: and,

That a condition be imposed requiring details of a landscaping scheme to be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority before the development commences, having particular regard to the area around the new forecourt parking area and between the proposed extension and the boundary with no.2 Burges Grove.

Retention of roof lights to the existing single storey rear extension.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item, made the following additions and reported the following late representations:

• That the following text be inserted after Non-Standard Condition: U35452 - Materials

“The parapet wall shall be constructed in materials to match the existing (unless the Local Planning Authority in writing otherwise agrees) within 28 days from the date of this permission.

REASON: To ensure that the proposed development is in keeping with the existing and does not prejudice the appearance of the locality.”

• Email received from Mrs Bedell 48 Waverley Ave advising as follows:

No representations were made.

The committee discussed the application design and the impact if any that it may have on neighbouring properties.

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

Modification of external elevations approved under 06/1545/FUL and 08/0304/FUL.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and reported the receipt of five additional letters of objection from residents of St Winifreds Road, which referred to the following:

• Previous objections still applicable;
• Increase in height of balustrade would amplify overbearing nature;
• Revised scheme did not result in a reduction in overall area;
• Increased pressure on on-street parking and highway safety concerns
• Nature conservation not addressed as lighting would be provided to access the terraces
• Increased overlooking and loss of privacy;
• Loss of sunlight
• Windows in south east elevation of Block A not obscured as previously and larger than the originally built design;
• Not compliant with BLT 16 (unneighbourliness) or DM HO 3 (Backland);
• Revised design is more obtrusive than the 1970s style;
• Materials inappropriate eg. the effect of boarded up window.

He also reported the receipt of a Petition with 69 signatures from residents concerned about the impact on parking in surrounding roads if the terraces were approved.

In addition he submitted the following additional non standard informative. ‘You are advised that when submitting the details seeking to discharge the materials, regard should be had to the glazing on the staircase access being of a form that would limit the amount of light emitted’.

No representations were heard.

The Committee discussed the details of the application and the design and angling of the breeze soleil.

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

Relocation of one residential unit from Block D into Block E and relocation of concierge facility from Block E to Block D.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item to the committee.  The Committee considered the relocation of the Concierge offices and the possible implications and local residents.

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

Roof terraces to blocks D.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the report and reported that three additional letters of objection from residents in St Winifreds Road had been received and raised the following concerns:

• Previous objections still applicable;
• Increase in height of balustrade would amplify the overbearing nature of the   development;
• Revised scheme would not result in a reduction in overall area;
• Increased pressure on on-street parking and highway safety concerns;
• Nature conservation not addressed as lighting would be provided to access the terraces;
• Increased overlooking and loss of privacy;
• Loss of sunlight

He also reported the receipt of a petition with 69 signatures concerned about the impact on parking in surrounding roads if the application for terraces were approved.

He also reported the addition of a further Non Standard Informative to read:

“You are advised that when submitting the details seeking to discharge the materials, regard should be had to the glazing on the staircase access being of a form that would limit the amount of light emitted”.

The Committee heard representations from three residents living near to the application site, Mr Walker, Mr Sayer and Mr Sands who all spoke against the application. 

The Committee also heard a representation from the agent, Caroline Wilberforce who spoke in favour of the application.

Finally the Committee heard a representation from Councillor Mathias who spoke as an interested Councillor.

The committee discussed the following pertinent issues:

·         The impact of noise and overlooking from the terraces at Block D on local residents and relevance of this in comparison to existing possible disturbance from existing neighbouring gardens and houses.

·         The possible impact of light intrusion from the terraces on local residents.

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

• No lighting shall be installed on the roof terrace areas, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice local wildlife/habitat, the amenities of nearby occupiers or the area generally.That no amplified sound be created on the terraces
  
  

·         No playing of musical instruments or operation of sound amplification equipment (including stereos, radios and speakers etc) shall take place on any part of the terraces hereby approved on any day/at any time so as to be audible outside the terrace. REASON: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the amenities of nearby occupiers or the area generally.

Roof terraces to blocks A, B and C.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and reported the receipt of further objections, and additions and amendments to the report as follows:

• 7 additional letters from residents in St Winifreds Road had been received which made the following points and objections:
  • Previous objections were still applicable;
  • Increase in height of balustrade would amplify the overbearing nature of the development;
  • Revised scheme would not result in a reduction in the overall area;
  • Increased pressure on on-street parking and highway safety concerns;
  • Nature conservation not addressed as lighting would be provided to access the terraces
  • Increased overlooking and additional loss of privacy;
  • Loss of sunlight;
  • Impact of terrace at Block A on no.49 not assessed;
  • Not compliant with DM DC 5 (roof terraces and balconies);
  • Units have access to outdoor amenity space;
  • Trees wouldn’t provide sufficient screening;
  • Applications latest in a series of ‘After the event’ proposals;
  • Raising height of the building.

• Petition with 69 signatures concerned about the impact on parking in surrounding roads if the terraces are approved.

• Additional Informative: “You are advised that when submitting the details seeking to discharge the materials, regard should be had to the glazing on the staircase access being of a form that would limit the amount of light emitted”.

The Committee heard representations from three residents living near to the application site, Mr Walker, Mr Sayer and Mr Sands who all spoke against the application. 

The Committee also heard a representation from the agent, Caroline Wilberforce who spoke in favour of the application.

Finally the Committee heard a representation from Councillor Mathias who spoke as an interested Councillor.

The Committee discussed the following themes:

• The proximity of the blocks in question, and therefore proposed terraces, to other residential properties and gardens.
  
  
• The height of screening on the proposed terraces and whether it would be affected by the depth of any decking and also the sight trajectory of people who may be utilising the terrace.
  
  
• Materials which would be appropriate and
  
  
• The impact of noise and overlooking from the terraces at Blocks A, B and C on local residents and relevance of this in comparison to existing possible disturbance from existing neighbouring gardens and houses.
  
  
• The possible impact of light intrusion from the terraces on local residents.
  
  

It was RESOLVED

1.                  that the officer recommendation for permission be NOT APPROVED.

2.                  That the application be REFUSED for the reason set out below:

‘The proposed roof terraces, by virtue of their proximity to surrounding properties, would be an unneighbourly and overbearing development that results in surrounding properties experiencing an increased loss of amenity by virtue of loss of privacy, increased overlooking and noise and disturbance, contrary to Policy BLT 16 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan (2005) and DM DC 6 of the Development Management Development Plan Document (2010) Publication Version.’

Proposed conversion of the existing property (shop unit on ground floor and maisonette at the rear/above) into 3 x 1 bedroom flats. Proposed loft conversion with rear dormer and conservation style roof lights to the front. Replacement of existing shop front, landscaping of the existing hardstanding with new garden area and a new brick boundary wall to front of the property.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the application for the Committee.  There were no late submissions or amendments to be heard.

The Committee heard a representation from Mr J Crookshank, Agent who spoke in favour of the application.

The committee had regard for the size of the rooms, one of which fell below council guidelines.  However it was felt that this was justified by the design requirements of the scheme. 

It was RESOLVED that the application be granted PERMISSION subject to the conditions and informatives contained in the officer’s report and the following additional informative:

• that the applicant be advised to situate the cycle parking to the back of the scheme.

Alterations to flue at rear of building.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer presented the application.

The Committee heard a representation from Mr Bhogal, the applicant who spoke in favour of the application.

The Committee discussed the application and commented on the length of the process to date. They were reassured to know that a condition was in place to ensure that work be carried out within a specified time. 

It was RESOLVED that the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives contained in the Officer’s report.

Loft extension, single-storey rear / side infill extension, and upgrade of side lean-to.

Officer’s recommendation:  REFUSAL

Having declared that she had pre-determined the application and would speak as an interested Councillor; Councillor Chappell withdrew from the Committee for the duration of the item.

The Development Control Officer introduced the report and made the following addition to end of paragraph 11 and the recommended reasons for refusal.  Add “and DM HD1 of the emerging Local Development Framework Development Management Plan”.

The Committee heard representations from Mrs Mohindra, applicant and Mr Qurashi, agent in favour of the application.

Councillor Chappell spoke as an interested Councillor.

The Committee discussed the merits of the desirable works included in the application.  However they agreed that they could not be used to compensate for the approval of the part of the application which was clearly against the Council’s policies and would create a precedent for future applications of the same nature or the need to revise current policy.

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

The erection of two single storey rear extensions.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and answered questions from the Committee.

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