Minutes of the Planning Committees held on 16 December 2010 and 6 January 2011 TO FOLLOW.

The minutes of the meetings held on 16 December 2010 and 6 January 2011 were agreed as correct records of proceedings and the Chairman authorised to sign them.

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

10/2927/VRC - RIVER THAMES VISITOR CENTRE, RIVERSIDE, RICHMOND

Councillor Naylor declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item by virtue of his acquaintance with the applicant and his membership of the Richmond Environmental Information Centre (REIC). He declared that he would be speaking as an interested Councillor and undertook to withdraw from the room once he had spoken.

LAND ADJ TO LEVEL CROSSING, MANOR ROAD, RICHMOND

Councillor Harborne declared that she had already formed a view on this application and was pre-determined. She declared that she would be speaking as an interested Councillor and undertook to withdraw from the committee for the duration of the item.

Councillor Naylor declared a personal interest by virtue of knowing the representative who was speaking on behalf of the applicant. He had not previously discussed the application with him nor formed a prior view.

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.

Variation and removal of conditions relating to planning application 05/3452/FUL.

Officer’s recommendation:  REFUSAL

Having declared that he had a prejudicial interest, Councillor Naylor withdrew from the Committee for the duration of the item and withdrew from the room following his representation.

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

·         One additional representation received in objection to the scheme, reiterating points raised by other objectors.

·         One additional representation in support of the public-spirited, not for profit River Thames Visitor centre organisation, also reiterating points raised by others in support of the application.

·         Two representations were received from the applicant responding to letters of objection. The applicant noted in his opinion, that the application would result in an improvement to the residential amenity of the area, and also noted that a number of the objections were not genuine, did not concern material planning considerations or were politically motivated.

The Committee heard a representation against the application from Mr Pineles, a residents’ association representative.

The Committee heard representations in support of the application from Mr Edwards, the applicant, and from Mrs Bailey and Mr Hamilton-Miller, who were local residents and members of REIC.

The Committee heard a representation read by Ms Wenman on behalf of Zac Goldsmith, the Member of Parliament for Richmond Park and North Kingston.

The Committee heard representations from Councillor Head and from Councillor Naylor, who spoke as interested Councillors.

The Committee discussed the proposed variation to the condition relating to use of premises (HM01). The nature of Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) was discussed and it was noted that allowing a wider use without having strong reasons for doing so would be contrary to the Council’s policies regarding MOL. It was also noted that the application to vary the condition would mean that a wide range of interpretations of the use would be possible and hence it would be difficult to ensure the use did not have a harmful effect on the MOL. It would also be more difficult to ensure this if the permission were no longer personal.

The Committee debated whether relaxing the use and hours of operation would have a harmful impact on neighbouring residents in terms of noise. Members of the Committee felt that given the location of the application site within Metropolitan Open Land, the applicant would need to demonstrate clearly the benefits of removing or varying conditions. It was felt that the potential harm to the MOL outweighed any benefits which had been identified.

It was RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED for the reasons set out in the officer’s report.

Erection of a footbridge to facilitate a pedestrian crossing of the railway and installation of 1 no. CCTV mast with 2 no. Cameras.

Officer’s recommendation:  REFUSAL

Having declared that she had pre-determined her view, Councillor Harborne withdrew from the Committee for the duration of this item.

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and made the following amendment to the report:

·         Add policy ‘DM DC1’ to reason for refusal.

The Development Control Officer reported receipt of the following correspondence:

Further letters objecting to the scheme, making the following comments:

• “Stairs are inadequate width.
• Fully enclosed bridge would not be used at night for fear of safety.
• Object to design.
• Unsuitable for elderly and disabled or those with pushchairs.
• Covered bridge not necessary when all others in area are open.
• Claustrophobic and threatening environment.
• Appears that many of those who support the bridge have not examined the precise design of the bridge but merely agree with the principle.
• Best option is to rebuild the existing bridge closer to crossing.
• Two bridges, twice the maintenance.
• Positioning will hinder maintenance vehicles.
• Results in people having to cross the road unnecessarily.
• Residents and commuters should not be made to pay for Network Rail’s actions in positioning the signalling equipment.
• Impact on privacy, aspect and security would be unbearable.
• In terms of commuters, anyone alighting at North Sheen and wanting to move south would have to use the old bridge, cross the road and then use the new bridge.
• Caging of bridge unnecessary and is not present on other bridges in the area. 
• Better control of times the barriers are down would be a better solution.”

The Development Control Officer clarified that a total of 21 individuals had objected to the proposal. Additional correspondence was reported:

Two further letters received supporting the scheme including one from the ‘Windsor Lines Passengers Association’ (WLPA) making the following comments:

• “The  WLPA has been campaigning for a long time to have the bridge at North Sheen Station restored to its full width to cater for passengers coming from the south side to the station and to make it possible for pedestrians to walk over the railway when it is closed.
• The WLPA urge the committee to find a modified design or alternative location if this application is rejected.
• Witnessed people crossing with the barriers down.
• The cage is sad reflection on idiots who think it is fun throwing shopping trolleys on to the line, if left off, Network Rail would probably be accused of negligence.
• Initially a new structure always has an impact but after it has been there a while it will just become part of the scenery.
• Question of the times the barriers are down needs to be addressed.  This will be less of a problem for the vast majority of pedestrians when the footbridge is built.”

Email from Network Rail:

• Network Rail has decided that it will proceed with planning permission for a caged footbridge, but when the bridge is built is will not be caged. If subsequent events prove that there is a health and safety need for the bridge to be caged, Network Rail will install caging.

The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48b

Change of use of first floor from B1 office to D1 Education.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

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

·        One additional representation received in objection to the scheme, reiterating points raised in previous objections and by other objectors.

No representations were heard.

The Committee were satisfied that the travel plan and the temporary period of permission would allow the authority to assess the impact on the highway. The Committee did not identify any potential harm and welcomed that fact that the change of use meant this part of the building would be occupied once more.

It was RESOLVED:

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

Change of use of the vacant ground floor level office floor spaces (B1 use) to a non-residential education and training centre (D1 use) and new boundary treatment.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the report. There were no late corrections to the report.

No representations were heard.

As with the application for the First Floor of Diamond House (09/2564/FUL) the Committee were satisfied that the local authority would have the opportunity to assess the impact on the highway given the temporary permission. The Committee did not identify potential harm and welcomed a new use for the vacant premises.

It was RESOLVED:

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

LT09 - Hard and Soft Landscaping Required

Conversion of store to B1 (business unit), to include raising of roofslope and part flat section, insertion of rooflights and fenestration alterations.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the report and made the following amendments:

Delete conditions DV15 & DV16 and replace with – ‘The rooflights in the south facing roofslope shall be permanently fitted with obscured glass and restricted in opening to 100mm in accordance with details which shall have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of the development.  

REASON:  To safeguard the amenities of the adjoining occupiers and the area.’

Add conditions –

·         Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, details of internal cycle parking facilities shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Thereafter the development shall not be completed other than in accordance with the approved details.

REASON: To accord with this Council's policy to discourage the use of the car wherever possible.

·         Notwithstanding the details of refuse and recycling provision shown on the approved plans, revised details of the storage facilities shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval.  Thereafter the development shall not be completed other than in accordance with the approved details.

REASON: In the interests of highway and pedestrian safety together with the amenities of surrounding residential properties.

·         No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a construction method statement has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The statement shall provide for:

i) size and routing of construction vehicles and holding areas for these on site;

ii) the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors;

iii) the loading and unloading of plant and materials;

iv) the storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development;

v) the erection and maintenance of security hoarding;

vi) measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction;

vii) a scheme for recycling and disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction work;

viii) Construction contractors membership of the Considerate Contractors Scheme.

REASON: In the interests of highway and pedestrian safety together with the amenities of surrounding residential properties

·        Add car club membership to condition DV43A.

The Committee heard representations against the application from Mr Cabrelli and Ms Morgan who were neighbours.

The Committee heard a representation in support of the application from Mr Huntley, the agent.

The Committee discussed imposing a condition of the hours of use in order to mitigate the impact on the highway, but it was noted that it would not be deemed reasonable to impose such a condition. The condition contained within the report which restricted parking permits was seen as an adequate method of preventing street parking. Though the Committee were mindful of the need to reach a decision on the application before them, they were also mindful of the fact that the premises could be converted to B1 use without planning permission. The Committee did not feel that there was a sufficient level of demonstrable harm in the proposal to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48e

Timber log play enclosure.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item. There were no late changes to the report.

The Committee heard a representation against the application from Ms Gandee, a neighbour.

The Committee were concerned about the development’s impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties, in terms of noise level. However, it was noted that a 2m high enclosure was permitted development and the use of the enclosure was ancillary to the educational premises which could continue lawfully.  As such enforcement against the structure itself would do little to address concerns of noise and disturbance. It was felt that a restriction on the hours of use would minimise the harm caused to the neighbouring properties to an extent.

It was RESOLVED:

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

·        Condition U37148 - Limited access

No access to the enclosure shall be made by pupils other than before 3-30pm on a term time weekday.

Reason: In the interest of residential amenity having regard to the close proximity of the enclosure with neighbouring private gardens.

·        Informative U51444

The applicants are requested, having regard to the close proximity of the existing enclosure with neighbouring private gardens, to consider an alternative location within the school premises. Failing this additional/supplementary screen planting is requested along the boundaries with residential property adjacent to the enclosure.

Amendment to previous approval 10/1530/FUL for demolition of existing garage and erection of pair of semi detached houses with associated car parking and to include greater rearward projection and design changes as well as extension to No. 135.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

This application was deferred prior to the meeting and would be heard at a later date.