Minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 17 February 2011 TO FOLLOW

The Chairman advised the Committee that minutes of the meeting of the 17 February were unavailable owing to an administrative query currently being resolved.  They would be tabled before the Committee for consideration at the earliest opportunity.

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

Councillor O’Malley declared a personal interest by virtue of being acquainted with Mr Goslett, who was speaking against the application. He stated that he had not previously spoken with Mr Goslett about the application, nor had he reached 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.

Objection to Tree Preservation Order

Officer recommendation:  Uphold the TPO (T0781)

The Arboricultural Officer introduced the item and reported the following information additional to the report:

• Mr Lear had submitted a scaled plan of the rear of the property and garden at 13 Victoria Rd, Twickenham.
• Mr Lear had submitted a letter from Arboricultural Consultant Dr Hope which read:
  
  

‘’I have now had an opportunity to inspect the photographs relating to the Ash tree growing in the grounds of your property. The tree is of poor quality, and is located close to the boundary of your property. Ash trees ultimately develop into very large specimens, which can dominate rural gardens and their surroundings. Your tree does already dominate your garden, and if left in situ it will continue to grow for the foreseeable future, and will pose continued problems. It is simply outgrowing its position. In my opinion, now would be an ideal opportunity to remove the tree, and replace it with a smaller species more suited to its position.’’

The Council’s Arboricultural Officer referred the Committee to his response to the letter which was as follows:

“The Arboriculturalist has deemed the tree to be of poor quality by perusing photographs.  In my professional opinion the quality of a tree should be determined by attending a site and undertaking a full assessment.  To place a judgement upon the quality of a tree based upon a photograph is not considered to be appropriate. 

It is argued that the tree dominates the garden and will continue to do so as the tree matures; using the plan that Mr. Lear has provided I have measured that the tree is over 10 meters away from the property. Many of the Boroughs larger street trees are within much closer proximity to properties. It is important to note that TPO’s are in place elsewhere in the Borough where there is a lesser distance between mature Ash trees and properties; which are able to co-exist without conflict.

The recommendation to remove this tree and replace it conflicts with the resident’s main reason for removing the tree (bird droppings).  As detailed within the main report problems associated with bird droppings may occur with any new tree planting.”

The Committee heard a representation from Mr Lear against the Tree Preservation Order.

The Committee also heard a representation from Councillor Chappell who spoke as an interested Councillor.

The Committee debated the suggested domination of the garden by the tree and the reason for the difference between viewpoints of the council and independent arboriculturalists.  The Committee heard that the council’s arboriculturalist had visited the site but the independent arboriculturalist had based his opinion on photographs alone.    

The Committee discussed other options for the discouragement of birds from roosting in the tree that they felt had not been fully explored by the resident.

It was RESOLVED that the Tree Protection Order be UPHELD

Erection of part single, part two storey Extension with part mansard roof to provide 13 additional bedrooms and landscaping

Officer recommendation:  PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and reported the following additional information received or amended since the publication of the agenda:

• A letter was received from Councillor Burford, requested a deferral of the application, by virtue of a number of residents having expressed concern about inadequate notification of the Committee meeting. If this were not possible, Councillor Burford asked that the application be refused on the grounds of inadequate parking provision.

• A letter was received from The Kew Society, objected on grounds of overdevelopment of the site, harm to the character of the area and a substantial increase in parking and traffic problems in an already congested location. They argued that the development would increase the accommodation by 50% whilst reducing parking by 50% and that the Travel Plan was unworkable.

• A letter was received from the Kew Residents Association objected on grounds of inadequate parking provision, in particular the loss of existing parking and the lack of provision for the additional demand created by the proposed additional hotel accommodation, and the consequential impact on traffic congestion and highways safety.

• A letter was received from a neighbouring occupier, which was mistakenly omitted from the representations set out in the Committee report. A summary of the letter is set out below, although most of the points have been raised by other objectors and are addressed in the Committee report:

·        Loss of an amenity:     The garden would be inaccessible, completely hemmed in by the two (2000 and proposed) extension blocks and the fence.  The garden would also be in complete shade throughout even the summer months apart from very early morning sun.

·        Overlooking/loss of privacy:   The proposed block would mean that a number of houses on Gloucester Road including mine would be severely overlooked at both ground floor and first floor level by this commercial development.

·        Visual amenity:  The proposed design is of yet another design which does not maintain or enhance the gabled Victorian architecture of the Conservation area, nor matches the original block.  The design has little relief and has a more 'dominant' elevation than the Gloucester Rd terraces.

·        Adequacy of parking/loading/turning:   Gloucester Road is one of the narrowest roads in Kew. We have reached a point where we cannot take an increased load through the addition of visitors to an additional 14 rooms (45 rooms in a residential conservation area!) and suggested (by Youngs) additional 15 staff.  I will point out here that nobody travels to the hotel by public transport.  Although the hotel is on a bus route, customers with luggage (predominately business from the Brentford Heathrow corridor), do not use buses.

·        Traffic Generation:  As previously stated all the visitors to the hotel come by car; they do not use the bus. The council's UDP discourages developments which will attract additional traffic onto the south-circular which this development will certainly do. 

·        Noise and disturbance resulting from use:  Extending the hotel would only increase the level of noise and disturbance. 

·        Loss of Trees: A number of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57b

Conversion of single family dwelling house to 2 x 2 bed self contained flats, erection of 4.5m single storey extension, outbuilding to rear of the property used for storage in connection with the flat located over the first and second floor. Two PV panels to be located on the roof of the rear dormer.

Officer recommendation:  PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item, briefly reported the history of the application to the committee and outlined its key features.  There were no amendments to report and no additional letters or information had been received.

The Committee heard a representation against the application from Mrs McCarthy.

The Committee heard representations for the application from Mr Broderick and Mr Tanna.

The committee discussed the information in the report, addendum and points raised by speakers; in particular they referred to the following:

(i)      The issue of alleyway facilities raised by a speaker the committee noted that it may be a right of way for neighbours but that the matter was subject to a dispute which was outside of the Committee’s remit.

(ii)    The length of the extension, at 4.5m was 1m above the council’s guidelines.  This was necessary in order to achieve the floor space for acceptably sized apartments.  The committee had due regard for the guidelines but accepted that they were guidance only and not a reason for refusal in themselves.  In addition other houses on the street had similar extensions and the proposed development was not considered to be intrusive to neighbours.

(iii)   The differences between the proposed development and developments elsewhere on the street where discussed, although the committee felt that matching developments were generally more desirable the area was not a conservation area and the building was not one of Townscape merit and therefore the lack of similarity was not considered to be a reason for refusal.

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

• Whilst not a material planning consideration the applicant is advised that if not the owner of the said alleyway no gate should be erected restricting access thereto.

Conversion of single family dwelling house into 1 x 1 and 1 x 2 bed flats, erection of 3.5m single storey extension, outbuilding to rear of the property used for storage in connection with flat 2 (located over first and second floor). Two PV panels to be located on the roof of the rear dormer.

Officer recommendation:  PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item, briefly reported the history of the application to the committee and outlined its key features. As it was for the same site as the previous application the officer highlighted the differences between the two for the committee.  There were no amendments to report and no additional letters or information had been received.

Although registered to speak on the item Mrs McCarthy, Mr Broderick and Mr Tanna did not exercise their right to make representations to the Committee.

The Committee discussed the report in particular the fact that this application as opposed to the one prior, fully complied with council guidelines but provided one two bedroom and one one bedroom apartment instead.

The Committee discussed briefly the alleyway access issue.

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

• Whilst not a material planning consideration the applicant is advised that if not the owner of the said alleyway no gate should be erected restricting access thereto.

Proposed separation of the ground floor public house (A3) from the first floor, conversion of the first floor into 2 x 2 bed flats and extensions to the first floor on both Albion Road and May Road.

Officer recommendation:  PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and reported the following additional information received or amended since the publication of the agenda:

·         The description of the proposal had been revised to read: ‘Proposed separation of the ground floor public house (A4 use) from the first floor residential. Conversion of the first floor into 2 no. 2 bed flats and extensions to first floor on both Albion and May Road.’

·         One late letter was received from a neighbour unable to attend the committee meeting which raised the following:

o        Description incorrect - The Kings Arms was A4 use with ancillary use upstairs, not C3 use.  The application should therefore be rejected and resubmitted in the correct format;

o        The site now occupied by 7a May Road was previously the garden of the Kings Arms and thus pushed more cars onto the street in addition to those that parked on the forecourt given that this space is required for bin and cycle storage. This would mean a minimum of two and a possibility of six cars more in the area, if there were two people in each flat, thus reducing the available capacity to below 10%.

o        Concerns that the parking survey did not take into consideration the two local car garage repair centres that use Albion Rd and May Rd for parking cars awaiting to work to be done or collection.

o        If the purchasers of the flats join a Car Club, they would surely require Car Club bays in the area; residents parking was rejected in this area at the last census by the locals.

o        Issues regarding skips, deliveries etc throughout construction and enforcement of order during this time

·         Legal advice had been sought regarding the point raised in the letter of incorrect classification.  That legal advice had been received as follows:

o        An error had occurred in the description of the application but that this was immaterial to the consideration of the planning application, in particular with regard to public consultation, the proposal was abundantly clear, and moreover the ground floor of the premises was described in terms as a public house.  There is therefore no realistic prospect than anyone will have been misled. 

• Additional condition: NS03: Notwithstanding the approved drawings, the termination point of the flue shown on drawing 04 02 rev D received 6^th December 2010 shall not be less than 1m above the eaves of the first floor of the building.

REASON: To protect neighbouring amenity.

• Additional condition: NS04: The proposed first floor window (serving bedroom 1) in the east elevation of the conversion hereby approved shall at no time be openable or glazed, otherwise than in obscured glass, below a minimum height of 1.75 metres (5'7") above the relevant floor level.

REASON: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the amenities of adjoining occupiers.

·         Additional condition: NS05:  No works shall commence until a scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by  the local planning authority which demonstrates  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57e

Demolition of existing dwellinghouse and erection of new 5-bedroom dwelling.

Officer recommendation:  PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and reported the following additional information received or amended since the publication of the agenda:

·         Amendment to paragraph 18: Penultimate sentence: “In addition, the proposed building would be narrower at first and second floor levels than existing and previously proposed.” to be omitted.

·        Amendment to paragraph 24: Second sentence “The upper floors would project back approximately 2-3m beyond set back behind the upper floors of no.58” be omitted and replaced to read “The upper floors would project back approximately 3.5m beyond the upper floors of no.58 at its closest point to the boundary”.

·        Additional information submitted:The applicants have submitted further information in respect of the Sustainability criteria. A revised Sustainable Construction Checklist and Code Pre-assessment report have been submitted and the Council Energy Consultant has advised that these are satisfactory. There remained however no energy statement amongst the documents provided. Some SAP calculations had been given. It can be gathered that total regulated emissions for the development were estimated at 6,081 kgCO2/yr, but unregulated emissions have not been included. There is also no calculation of the expected kgCO2 savings from the proposed 20sqm of solar PV shown on the plans. This therefore made it hard to assess whether the 10% emissions reduction from Renewable Energy Technologies proposed in their checklist submission was accurate or not. Basic calculations would indicate that a saving of 10-14% of the regulated savings could be achieved from the Solar PV proposed on the roof. The Energy Consultant has advised that bearing in mind it was a new build proposal, and some information has been submitted (including the Code Level 3 and Sustainable Construction Checklist) it would be reasonable in this instance for the matter to be addressed by condition.

·         Additional Non-Standard Condition- NS09 - Prior to the commencement of the development on site, an Energy Report outlining details of how a 20% reduction in co2 emissions would be achieved via renewable energy technologies shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details. REASON: In the interest of sustainable construction, to accord with the aims and objectives of the Council’s Sustainable Construction Checklist SPD.

·         Amended drawing numbers for Condition DV48:1233-EL05A, EL06A and PL11B received 14 July 2010; 1233-EL01F, EL02F, EL03F, EL05F, EL07F, PL01F, PL02F, PL04F, PL07F and PL11F received by the Council by 4 November 2010; and1233-EL04G & PL03G received 2 March 2011

·         Additional Non Standard Informative:NI05 – In discharging Condition LT09 provision should be made for the parking of two vehicles only. This is in the interests of highway safety to ensure that cars enter and leave in a forward gear.

The Committee heard a representation against the development from Mr Beamish a Planning consultant representing a neighbour.

The Committee heard representations for the development from Mr Burroughs and Mr Moser, the agent and applicant respectively and Mr McIntosh a neighbour.

The committee discussed the information in the report, addendum  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57f

Loft conversion incorporating rear dormer roof extension. Erection of a garden shed.

Officer recommendation:  PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and reported the following additional information received or amended since the publication of the agenda:

• One late letter had been received from a neighbour stating they would not attend the meeting as a decision has already been made without consideration for people who live in the area.

The committee discussed the information in the report and addendum; in particular they referred to the following:

(i)      The positioning of the dormer windows and that these positions conformed to Council guidelines.

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

Variation of condition U30490 (Servicing) of planning permission 09/2147/FUL to enable the ground floor commercial unit (No. 1 & 2) to be used for A1 (Retail uses).

Officer recommendation:  PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and reported the following additional information received or amended since the publication of the agenda:

• An e-mail had been received from Councillor Head referring to the following:

o        Omission in the report regarding the Section 106 which originally allowed the CCTV camera

o        CCTV at Richmond Circus could monitor the loading bay

o        Other areas in the Borough where this camera would be better placed

• An e-mail had been received from Councillor Blakemore referring to the following:

o        The CCTV is not mentioned in the report, however, there is concern that it would still form part of the development, and would be used.

• Additional condition: The development shall not be carried out other than as variation to the terms and requirement of planning permission ref: 09/2147/FUL.  REASON:  In order to ensure a satisfactory form of development”

• Amendment to report: Removal of ‘hours’ from para.12

·         Amendment to report: Additional paragraphs:

To read: “The Planning Committee, in January 2010, approved Heads of Terms securing a new loading bay on Kew Road, and £30,000 for the provision of a CCTV camera on Kew Road (installation, hook, and link up and maintenance for 5 years), as part of the original application in 2009 (ref: 09/2147/FUL).  The Section 106 has been signed.  As previously advised, a further Heads of Terms is being recommended as part of this application to secure monies for the relevant Traffic Order and highway works for the adaption of an existing loading bay to coincide with the proposed delivery hours.

The monies for the CCTV camera have been paid, and this has been committed to and installed.  Whilst the loading bay has altered location, the necessity for the CCTV camera remains, as confirmed by both the Transport Planner and the Council’s Principle Highways Engineer, to ensure the loading bay is used for such purposes (rather than short term parking), and consequently to protect the free flow of traffic.

The Planning Committee could only consider revisiting the terms of the original Section 106 Agreement if:

1.      they decide that the CCTV Contribution should not have been requested in the first place, and there are good reasons for such;

2.      they have the benefit of technical advice to support that argument (without which, such a change of mind would be unreasonable); and 

3.      they can identify that something has radically changed between the circumstances of the earlier application and this one which would justify this; and

4.      Tesco agree to it.

It also necessary to highlight, that if Planning Committee did resolve that the original Section 106 should be varied to remove the requirement for a CCTV camera, the Highway Authority would be required to repay the £30,000 out of its own budget.”

The Committee heard a representation against the application from Mr Goslett, a Local Traders’ Association Representative.

The committee heard a representation from Councillor Lisa Blakemore, who spoke as an interested Councillor.

The committee discussed the information in the report, addendum and points  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57h

Improvements to tennis court facilities including changing three tennis courts to artificial grass and inclusion of low impact flood lighting.

Officer recommendation:  PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and reported the following additional information received or amended since the publication of the agenda:

• Additional condition:  Prior to the commencement of development, a scheme showing the design and finish of the proposed switch gear box and fence shall be submitted to and approved in writing.  The development shall only be implemented in accordance with the approved details. 
  REASON:  To preserve the character and appearance of the site and area in general.

• Additional condition:  Prior to the commencement of the works, details of landscaping and biodiversity enhancement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Information should include details of the removal and return of the current practice wall to grassland, details of the new yew hedge planting and details of the enhancement of site peripheries with plantings of native species (e.g. including oak, hazel, hawthorn & holly as detailed in the application information). The landscaping and biodiversity enhancements shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to the installation of the floodlighting and use of the courts hereby approved, and maintained thereafter in accordance with the approved details.  REASON: In the interests of biodiversity and nature conservation

The Committee heard a representation for the application from the Chairman of Richmond Lawn Tennis Club, Mr Ross.

The committee discussed the information in the report, addendum and points raised by speakers; in particular they referred to the following:

(i)      The impact on neighbours of lighting required for new tennis courts.  The committee was assured that the lighting was positioned in such a way that it would not impact on neighbours; in addition it angled down toward the court to further reduce impact.

(ii)    The committee viewed a sample of the acrylic grass to be used and heard that it was permeable.

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

Single storey rear extension

Officer recommendation:  PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item; he reported that the application appeared before the committee in line with Council protocol as it belonged to a close relative of a councillor not in attendance.  There had been no additional information received or amendments made since the publication of the agenda.

The committee discussed the information in the report in particular they referred to the following:

(i)      That the application conformed to all council guidelines and no significant harm could be identified.

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

Demolition of existing conservatory and erection of single storey rear extension.New window at ground floor level in flank elevation.

Officer recommendation: That a Certificate of Lawful Development be granted.

The Development Control Officer introduced the item; he reported that the application appeared before the committee in line with Council protocol as it belonged to an employee of the Environment Directorate not in attendance.  There had been no additional information received or amendments made since the publication of the agenda.

The committee discussed the information in the report in particular they referred to the following:

(i)      That the application was for works covered by permitted development rights but needed to be confirmed by the committee in line with Council protocols. 

(ii)    No substantial harm was identified.

It was RESOLVED that a Certificate of Lawful Development be GRANTED.