Minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held 3 February 2011 TO FOLLOW

The minutes of the meetings held on 3 February 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.

10/3165/FUL - DARELL JR SCHOOL, DARELL RD

Councillor Linnette declared a personal and prejudicial interest by virtue of being a school governor for Darrell Junior School and undertook to withdraw from the room for the duration of the item.

10/3734/HOT - 214 BUCKINGHAM ROAD, HAMPTON

Councillor Elloy declared a personal interest in this item by virtue of the fact that one of the objectors to the application was his accountant.

Councillor Morris declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item by virtue of being the applicant. She undertook to withdraw from the room following her representation.

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 first floor side extension, two storey side and rear extension, rear dormer, front porch and construction of basement, being a variation of a scheme granted planning permission on 12 April 2010 (10/0370/HOT)

Officer’s Recommendation: PERMISSION

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

• 9 further representations from neighbouring occupiers, reiterating previous objections on grounds of:
  • Increased flood risk from basement;
  • Overdevelopment of the site, when the basement is considered in conjunction with previously approved extensions;
  • Loss of trees/impact on visual amenity.
  • Possible damage to ground conditions from the basement which should be thoroughly investigated before a decision is taken

• Page 4; para 21; line 2; insert ‘not’ after ‘this is …’

There were no speakers allowed on this item as the application had been previously deferred and there was no new information submitted.

The Committee discussed the neighbouring residents’ concerns regarding the construction of a basement. It was agreed that this was a civil matter covered under the party wall act. The Committee noted that residents with concerns regarding the basement should contact the Council’s Building Control department.

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

Extend existing property to provide 5 self contained flats, 1retail shop on ground floor and cycle stand and refuse storage area.

Officer’s recommendation: REFUSAL

Councillor Naylor declared that he had visited the site.

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

• Delete paragraph 22 as the question of site ownership has been resolved.

• Councillor Eady has provided Members with his additional letter of objection.

• Mr Tebb, planning consultant to the applicant, has written to members commenting on the report.

• A local resident has reiterated objections relating to overdevelopment, damaging visual impact and also the impact on visibility at the junction.

• In reason for refusal NS01 add ‘and policy TRN 04 of the Richmond upon Thames Unitary Development Plan First Review

The Committee heard representations against the application from Mr Crowley and Mrs Raja, local residents, and Mr Stubbs, a neighbour not adjoining the site.

The Committee heard representations in favour of the application from Mr Tebb, a consultant on behalf of the applicant.

The Committee heard a representation from Councillor Eady, who spoke as an interested Councillor.

The Committee discussed the appearance of the development and established that traditional stock brick would be used along with slate roofing. The committee was concerned that the terrace would have a negative impact on the streetscene. It was noted that the garden would meet basic requirements if permission was granted. In relation to residents’ concerns over local parking capacity the Committee heard it should note its own local parking requirements.

It was RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for the reasons set out in the officer’s report and for the following additional reason:

The proposed extension of the terrace, by reason of its bulk, mass, design and siting would be an intrusive element in the street scene, being prominently visible from Princes Road in particular and out of keeping with character of the area. The proposal would therefore be contrary to policy ENV 11 of the Richmond upon Thames Unitary Development Plan First Review and policy CP7 of the Richmond upon Thames Local Development Framework Core Strategy, and Emerging Policy DM DC 1 of the Development Management Plan, Local Development Framework.

Erection of two storey front extensions to both sides of the property. Rear dormer roof extension and raising of ridge height of roof and insertion of roof lights. Single storey rear extension. Elevational changes.

Officer’s recommendation: PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item.

The Committee heard representations in favour of the application from Mr White, the applicant, and Mr Catto, the agent.

The Committee was concerned that the development met the existing street scene. However the Committee noted that the properties on Acacia Road were of varying scale and design. The Committee was advised that it would not be reasonable to impose a condition on the application that required similar windows and render to neighbouring properties to be used.

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

Variation of condition NS01 of planning permission 00/1926 to state that the number of pupils on the school roll shall at no time exceed 1000, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (The maximum number at present is 550 pupils).

Officer’s recommendation: PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item.

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

The Committee discussed putting in place a mechanism to prevent the school from going over its capacity limit again. The Committee considered the impact of the school’s capacity on traffic and parking. As the school roll was currently 941 the effect of the increased capacity limit was unlikely to make a considerable difference. The Committee noted the Council’s Highways department had not objected to the application and it would be difficult to sustain a refusal on appeal if the Committee refused the application on traffic and parking grounds.

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 and amended informative:

·         That the school is requested to notify the council annually on their intake figures for pupils

·         That the School Travel  Plan  informative be amended to include a reference to  submitting the travel plan to the Council’s engineers

The part retention, alteration and erection of a part 1 storey part 2 storey side extension, part 1 storey part 2 storey rear extension, and a roof extension with side and rear dormer windows; and the part demolition of an existing unauthorized side/rear and roof extension.

Officer’s recommendation: PERMISSION

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

Changes to the report:

·        Delete conditions U37498 and U33132

·        Amend condition U37486, replace #3 months# with #6 months#

New Conditions:

·        DV48 Approved Drawings #1006/EX.02, 1006/EX.01 and the location plan received on 9^th June 2010, 1006/GA.01 received on 28 October 2010#

·        The development hereby approved shall not commence until details of a suitable means of enclosure to be constructed along the front boundaries of the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter, this agreed scheme shall be implemented within one month of the substantial implementation of the remainder of the development.

Reason: To satisfactorily safeguard the appearance of the street scene

·        Add non-standard informative:

“The applicant’s attention is drawn to the enforcement notice issued by the local planning authority in respect of this property under section 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 on 8^th January 2010 and which required the removal of an unauthorized roof and side extension to the property by 19^th May 2010.  Compliance had not been made with this notice at the date of this planning permission.  The implementation of this planning permission in strict accordance with its terms will override the enforcement notice but until such time as this has been done the owner of the property is liable to prosecution and in any event will continue to be liable to prosecution for the period between the 19^th May 2010 and the date the planning permission is fully implemented.   The applicant is advised that if a material start is not made to the implementation of this planning permission within a period of six months and the planning permission has not been fully implemented within a period of nine months a report is likely to be made with a view to prosecution.  (This is without prejudice to the local planning authority’s power to commence a prosecution in any event.)”

·        Late email from a local resident (the occupant of 135 Whitton Road) who advises that she is unable to attend the meeting.  However she wishes to make the following remarks for consideration at the hearing:

“Your summary:

The proposed site would definitely have an impact on the appearance within the surrounding area as it is much larger than any of the other properties surrounding it. There would most definitely be loss of privacy and light even with the amended application.

Point 4: The Council originally deemed the building works to be in breach owing to non permission outside of permitted or allowed development - why OK now?

Point 7: Definite loss of light currently with the 2nd storey rear and side extension as stated in my appeal letter - will remain loss of light with the amended plans

Point 9: Definite loss of light currently with the 2nd storey rear and side extension as stated in my appeal letter - will remain loss of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54e

Extensions to the existing building at ground, second, third and fourth floor levels to provide additional office space, alterations to elevational treatment, onsite parking and hard and soft landscaping.

Officer’s recommendation: PERMISSION

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

·        It has been noted that the ownership of a strip of land on the Church Road frontage and within the application site was transferred to the Council in 1992 for possible road widening which has not taken place. An extract from title below shows the area of land in question:

·        Although landownership matters are not strictly planning matters, the applicant has amended the scheme slightly reducing the size of the proposed canopy so it does not overhang the affected area. This will ensure there is no conflict should the Council decide to implement the road widening at a future date.

·        As such, an amended proposed ground floor, first floor, roof plan and elevations have been submitted showing this alteration. Condition DV48 (Approved drawing/information references) will therefore be amended to remove reference to 'Proposed ground floor plan' 026, 'Proposed first floor plan' 027, 'Proposed roof plan' 031, 'Proposed elevations 01 and 03' 040 and 'Proposed elevations 02 and 05' 041 received 26/01/2011 will be replaced with ‘Proposed ground floor plan’ 026 rev. B, ‘Proposed first floor plan’ 027 rev. B, ‘Proposed roof plan’ 031 rev. B, ‘Proposed elevations 01 and 03’ 040 rev. A, ‘Proposed elevations 02 and 05’ 041 rev. A all received 15/02/2011.

·        An additional informative will also be imposed alerting the applicant to the need to contact the Council’s Estates and Valuation department for further information in this regard.

There were no speakers for this item.

The Committee discussed the development’s location in relation to neighbouring residential properties on Church Road. It was felt that the refurbishment of the building, including the cleaning of the brickwork and replacement of windows, would improve the appearance of the building. 

It was RESOLVED that the application be APPROVED subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report and subject to the following additional condition and informative:

·        Condition: Prior to the commencement of development, a scheme showing the location and permeable surface materials proposed for the areas of hard surfacing 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 ensure appropriate surface water drainage.

·        Informative: The applicants are advised the permeable surface should cover more than the car parking spaces.

Alterations to flank gable dormer with obscure glass and non opening window to stairwell (amendment to planning permission ref. 09/3038/FUL) including roof light to front extension.

Officer’s Recommendation: PERMISSION

Councillor Roberts declared that he had visited the site.

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

·         Mr Frixou, an objector, has written to members commenting on the report.

The Committee heard representations in support of the application from Mr Hills and Ms Morris, the applicants.

As she was also a member of the Council and had declared a prejudicial interest, Ms Morris withdrew from the room for the remainder of this item.

Councillor Elloy spoke as an interested councillor.

The Committee expressed concern about the proximity of the balcony to the neighbouring property. The Committee agreed that any trellis used as screening would need to be at least 1.7m high to be effective.

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

·         Condition: The balcony shall not be used unless a side screen, at a minimum height of 1.7m, is provided and constructed in accordance with details which have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The side screen shall be installed on the east facing side of the balcony.

REASON: To comply with the terms of the application and to safeguard privacy.

·         Informative: With regard to condition 5 (U37877 - Side screen to balcony required) the applicants are encouraged to discuss with occupiers of neighbouring property the choice of materials used for the side screen prior to submission for approval.

To provide a new gathered SEN (Special Educational Needs) space on site that provides suitable and supportive environment for 2 pupils with severe learning and 6 pupils with moderate difficulties at key Stage 1. Remodel the existing schools main entrance and reconfigure internal administrative areas.

Officer’s recommendation: PERMISSION

Having declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item Councillor Linnette withdrew from the room for the duration of the item.

The Committee voted to decide who would take the chair for this item and Councillor Miller was agreed.

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

The Committee heard representations in favour of the application from Ms Lane, the applicant, and Ms Dunshire, the architect.

The Committee discussed the design and functionality of the development. They agreed that it was a modest building, with a modern design, that would meet the school’s requirements.

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

Demolition of the existing building and erection of two semi-detached townhouses with new vehicular access.

Officer’s recommendation: PERMISSION

and Conservation Area Consent be GRANTED

Councillor Naylor declared that he had visited the site.

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

The Committee heard representations in favour of the application from Mr Pryor, a consultant on behalf of the applicant, and Mr Smith, the architect.

The Committee were keen to ensure that the property’s back garden did not negatively impact upon the riversetting. They considered a boundary to divide the garden in two. In addition, the Committee was concerned that the street scene on Cross Deep could be negatively affected by the development. The Committee was also concerned that vehicles reversing out of the property could present a hazard to pedestrians and traffic.

It was RESOLVED:

(i)                  That the officer’s recommendation be NOT approved,

(ii)                That the application and conservationarea consent be REFUSED for the following reasons:

The development, by reason of its siting, design, form, bulk, scale and materials would represent a visually intrusive form of development, that would harm the character and appearance of the streetscene, conservation area in general, and the Thames Special Policy Area.  The scheme is thereby contrary to policies ENV26, BLT2, BLT11, HSG4 and HSG11 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan; policies CP7 and CP11 of the Core Strategy; policies DM OS11, DM HD1, DM HO2, DM DC1 of the Development Management Plan:  Publication Version; and Supplementary Planning Documents ‘Small and Medium Housing Sites’ and ‘Design Quality’.

By reason of the absence of a legal obligation securing, membership for all future occupiers to a car club; and restriction on future occupiers from applying for car parking permits; the proposal would represent an unacceptable form of development that would result in unacceptable parking congestion and prejudice the free flow of traffic and highway and pedestrian safety, contrary to policies TRN2, TRN4, HSG11 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan; policy CP5 of the Adopted Core Strategy; policy CM TP8 of the Development Management Plan:  Publication Version; and Supplementary Planning Document ‘Car club Strategy’